BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Third Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 22 October (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 22 October (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

The Deputy Prime Minister was asked—

Third Party Campaign Expenditure

Paul Blomfield: What his policy is on third party campaign expenditure.

Nicholas Clegg: Before turning to the question, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith) for her excellent work in the past year on political and constitutional reform. I welcome the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who will bring unique zeal to decentralisation in particular, which he has championed within Government. I also welcome the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) to his new position on the Opposition Front Bench.
	It is of course good that people are motivated to campaign for what they believe in, whether inside or outside a traditional political party. However, it is also important that the integrity of democratic political campaigning is maintained. Campaigning by third parties at general elections should therefore be made more transparent and accountable.

Paul Blomfield: I am sure that the Deputy Prime Minister has, like many hon. Members, been contacted by hundreds of people from the voluntary, charity and community sectors who are vehemently opposed to the gagging provisions in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration
	Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has assiduously cultivated those groups in the past, and frankly, they feel betrayed. Will he explain to them why he has led the Liberal Democrats in support of this assault on grass-roots politics? Better still, will he recognise, even at this late stage, that he has got this badly wrong and join us in opposing the Bill?

Nicholas Clegg: My view is that if we did nothing about the increasing trend of big money in British politics, which seeks to influence the outcome of political contests through groups that are not political parties, those very same groups would campaign after the next general election, saying that we should do something about that trend. At the general election, non-party political funds doubled to £3 million. We have seen what happens when that gets out of control. Just look across the Atlantic at the United States: super-PACs—political action committees; the increasing polarisation of politics; and people outside the democratic political process, non-political parties, trying to influence the outcome of elections. We will maintain the rules, as they have existed since 2000, on whether groups are regulated as third party campaign groups. All we are saying is that non-party political parties that want to act like a political party should be asked to fill in the same paperwork as a political party.

Therese Coffey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in the Bill that stops campaigns on particular policies? Furthermore, we will not end up with third party groups spending more than political candidates are able to spend on their own election.

Nicholas Clegg: My hon. Friend is exactly right. Under the current rules, a well-funded third party campaign group seeking to influence the democratic outcome in a constituency or constituencies could spend more money than a political party. That, surely, cannot be right. The Labour party, which is run by a third party campaign group, the trade unions, does not think it is a problem if political parties are influenced by third party campaign groups that might have political designs. Nothing in the Bill would stop Make Poverty History spending millions on its campaign. Nothing would stop the Green Alliance grading us all on our green promises—nothing would change that.

John Cryer: Returning to planet earth, the Deputy Prime Minister regularly bleats on about the value of consultation. Why did that not apply to the lobbying Bill? There was no form of consultation whatever on this wretched Bill.

Nicholas Clegg: There was extensive consultation and scrutiny on the lobbying provisions in the Bill. The parts on third party campaigning were discussed extensively by the three parties in the cross-party funding talks. It was agreed by all parties, and backed by Sir Christopher Kelly in his recommendations on party funding reform, that any change to party funding arrangements should also include some limits on third party campaign groups when they want to influence the political outcome in a constituency or constituencies.

Andrew Bridgen: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that there is huge public demand for complete transparency in the influence of trade unions, especially during election periods and especially given the allegations concerning the actions of Unite in the affairs of the Labour party earlier this year?

Nicholas Clegg: I have this old-fashioned view that in all our constituencies candidates from our democratic political parties should be slugging it out on a level playing field and that we should not have people pulling the strings in the background in an untransparent way. That is all the Bill is trying to do. Anyone who believes in the integrity and transparency of democratic, open contest in our constituencies should support the Bill.

Electoral Register

Lindsay Roy: What steps his Office is taking to improve the completeness and accuracy of the Electoral Register.

Nicholas Clegg: The Government will shortly publish the results of our confirmation dry run exercise, which matched almost 47 million electors against Department for Work and Pensions data. The results were much better than we anticipated and, using a combination of national and local data, could lead to an overall average match rate of 85%. In addition, we are making registration simpler by enabling online registration, and in June we announced £4.2 million-worth of measures to maximise voter registration ahead of the transition to individual electoral registration.

Lindsay Roy: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his answer, but will he explain what he is doing to promote voter registration among our armed services personnel, whose percentage registration has been highlighted as a cause for concern?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that the Cabinet Office has been working with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that efforts are undertaken. Considerable efforts have been made in the past, but where we can do more, we should do more, in order to encourage anyone who is eligible to vote to do so and to enter into the new individual voter registration system, as I explained earlier.

Philip Hollobone: As well as the problem of not enough voters being registered, there is a problem of voters registered under the wrong category. Given the growing number of EU nationals in this country who can vote in local and European elections but not in Westminster parliamentary elections, may we have clearer guidance from his Office to that effect?

Nicholas Clegg: I am not sure precisely what my hon. Friend is referring to, but the rules are very clear: EU nationals may vote in local and European elections but not national elections, and electoral registration officers are fully aware of that and, in my experience, are scrupulous in ensuring that the system reflects it. If he has any particular reservations, however, he can of course bring them to my attention.

William McCrea: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that in Northern Ireland there is a new drive for individual registration, and would he find it helpful to monitor the success of that exercise and to learn from the experience?

Nicholas Clegg: Absolutely; in designing the system of individual voter registration that we are introducing, we looked very carefully at the strengths and weaknesses of the experience in Northern Ireland. The most important innovation on which we have embarked is the one I explained earlier, which is matching the very large databases that we already have with information on the electoral register and, in effect, automatically enrolling millions of people on the individual voter registration system.

Nick Smith: What will be the Electoral Commission’s budget for raising awareness of the introduction of individual electoral registration?

Nicholas Clegg: I will have to write to the hon. Gentleman on the specific figure, but of course we work very closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure that we pull in the same direction to raise awareness of the changes to the new system, and we have allocated just over £4 million to various groups locally working with us and the Electoral Commission to raise awareness among those groups where under-registration has historically been a problem.

Stephen Twigg: First, I join the Deputy Prime Minister in congratulating the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), on his appointment.
	The Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the data-matching dry run this summer, which I understand produced an outcome nationally of 78% accuracy. Within that, however, was a range of 47% to 87%. Is there not a risk that even more electors will fall off the electoral register because of the speed at which the Government are introducing the new system? Will he consider delaying the introduction of individual voter registration in order to maximise the completeness and accuracy of the register?

Nicholas Clegg: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the data-matching tests are a dry run and have exceeded expectations. We think that the use of those central databases, particularly the DWP database, combined with what we do with other databases, should raise the overall figure of automatic enrolment when that finally happens. As he also knows, we have done a considerable amount to ensure that there is a two-year roll-over period, so that people who do not automatically register before the next general election will still have an opportunity to do so, while door-to-door information will be provided to people so that they will know how the new system works. We have put as many belt-and-braces provisions in place as possible, therefore, to ensure that the maximum number of people are on the new IER system.

Returning Officers Fees

Andrew Selous: What his policy is on the level of fees paid to returning officers.

Greg Clark: Returning officers are entitled under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to receive payments for administering election polls, as those responsibilities fall outside their local authority duties.

Andrew Selous: These are some of the highest paid public servants in the land, sometimes on salaries of about £200,000. How can we continue to justify paying these people extra sums of £30,000 or so just to do another task, for which their salary should be more than enough to compensate them?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I look forward to meeting him next week to discuss these matters further. Before the previous Government left office they increased the fees to returning officers, allowing fees to be paid uncapped for multiple constituencies. We in this Government froze those fees from that time. I look forward to our discussions and to hearing my hon. Friend’s views, which I know he has thoroughly researched.

Helen Jones: May I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new post and ask him to give consideration to the situation where returning officers have often made numerous mistakes during elections? We had this happen several years ago in Warrington when the wrong people were declared elected for some parish poll, yet there is no provision to reduce or take away the returning officer’s fee when that happens. Should that not happen? Will the Minister consider that?

Greg Clark: I am happy to take on board the hon. Lady’s suggestion. Of course, returning officers do not need to accept the fee. There are some honourable examples where returning officers have not taken the full fee to which they are entitled. That option is available to them.

Political Party Funding

Simon Hughes: What progress the Government has made in reviewing the law on the funding of political parties; and if he will make a statement.

Andrew George: What recent assessment he has made of the need for reforms to party funding.

Nicholas Clegg: I have always been clear that any reform is best achieved by consensus. Despite seven meetings, I am disappointed that, as on previous occasions, there has been no agreement between the three parties on beginning party funding reform.

Simon Hughes: The Deputy Prime Minister and colleagues have managed to get agreement across government to deal with third party big funding and agreement with the official Opposition to deal with the Leveson issues on regulating the press—it was difficult, but we got there. Will my right hon. Friend make a renewed effort to try to get a deal with the Labour and Conservative parties in time for the election to take some very big money out of party politics so that voters, not big funders, decide the outcome?

Nicholas Clegg: I would love to think that there might be a realistic prospect of that, but, frankly, I do not think that there is. We tested it to destruction in seven meetings that brought the three parties together over a prolonged period on the back of very strong recommendations from Sir Christopher Kelly and his Committee. Not to put it too delicately, the same old vested interests relating to donation caps on the one hand and the financial relationship between the Labour party and the trade unions on the other were, once again, not reconcilable. Until we get those two things aligned, a cross-party agreement on party funding is unlikely—but it will have to happen eventually; otherwise we will be afflicted by scandal after scandal and controversy after controversy.

Andrew George: What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that company shareholders, co-op members and union members have a reasonable say on political donations made in their name?

Nicholas Clegg: If I understand it correctly, moves are afoot, although they are rather opaque to an outsider so far as the trade union funding link with the Labour party is concerned. More generally, transparency has to be a good thing when money is sloshing around the system and it could influence democratic electoral contests. To return to my earlier theme, this is what the transparency provisions on third party campaigning are all about—not to stop charities from doing their work or from campaigning, but simply to make them transparent in how the money is used, particularly where they choose to use money for explicitly political ends to engineer or influence a particular outcome in a constituency.

Sheila Gilmore: The problem with the Deputy Prime Minister’s position is that he was willing to rush out a Bill to capture what amounts to a small problem, which may well damage democracy, but he was not prepared to put the weight of his position behind actually achieving a solution on party funding.

Nicholas Clegg: Talk about pots and kettles! It is no secret that, in a sense, the Liberal Democrats are not rich enough to have quite the vested interests that are involved in all this. It has always been resistance from the two established, larger parties that has prevented a deal, and that is exactly what happened on this occasion. I do not think that we should beat about the bush.
	As for the hon. Lady’s first point, I urge her not to be complacent about the trend towards the funnelling of increasingly large amounts of money into the political process by non-political parties. Look at what has happened in the United States. Do we really want to go in the direction of super-PACS or very well-funded groups trying to influence the political process? I do not think that that would be healthy for our democracy.

Sadiq Khan: I, too, welcome the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) to his new position.
	As the Deputy Prime Minister will know, Sir Christopher Kelly’s most recent report recommended a reduction in the cap on political parties’ general election expenditure
	from £19 million to £16 million, and before the last general election the Prime Minister said that it should be £15 million. Sir Christopher’s report also referred to the lobbying Bill, which will reduce what campaigning groups can spend by more than 70% although they spend a fraction of what is spent by political parties. What does the Deputy Prime Minister think the cap should be for political parties’ general election expenditure, and what does he think should be the maximum donation that an individual can make?

Nicholas Clegg: First, I do not think that it is possible to view one of those figures in isolation. It is not possible to consider the £19 million or the £15 million figure without trying to incorporate it in a cross-party consensus on political party funding, which has eluded us so far. As for individual donations to individual candidates, our Bill increases the limit from £500 to £700.
	Secondly, charities and campaign organisations that are not seeking to influence the outcome of an electoral contest in a constituency can spend as much money as they like. They can spend millions and millions of pounds, unregulated, if they are not seeking to enter into the democratic process. If they do seek to enter into the democratic process, why are they not asked to fill in the same paperwork as political parties?
	Topical Questions

Martin Vickers: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Nicholas Clegg: As Deputy Prime Minister, I support the Prime Minister on a full range of Government policies and initiatives. Within Government, I take special responsibility for the Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform.

Martin Vickers: When my right hon. Friend visited north-east Lincolnshire recently, he must have observed the tremendous investment that has been made in the offshore renewables sector which is helping to boost the local economy. However, much of north-east Lincolnshire in still in recession. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that the Government will do all that they can to support the area during the present difficult times?

Nicholas Clegg: Having visited the area on numerous occasions, I am acutely aware of the importance of the new green offshore wind industry to the long-term economic prospects of my hon. Friend’s constituents and the region. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change is doing a huge amount in trying to secure, for instance, the long-awaited and much discussed investment from Siemens in the Hull area, which will transform the local economy, and I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that those endeavours will continue.

Harriet Harman: Will the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledge that his Government’s justification for the bedroom tax—that it
	will mean tenants moving to smaller homes—cannot work unless there are smaller homes for them to move to? What is his estimate of the percentage of tenants for whom there is no smaller home to go to?

Nicholas Clegg: I totally accept the premise, which is that a change from one system to another involves hard cases that need to be—[Interruption.] That is why we are providing hard cash for hard cases. We have trebled the discretionary housing payments that are available to local councils.I am not in any way seeking to ignore the fact that some individual cases really do need the flexibility and the money from local authorities to enable their circumstances to be dealt with.
	Let me say this to the right hon. and learned Lady. If there is a principled objection to this change, I do not understand why, in all the years during which Labour was in government, exactly the same provisions existed for millions of people in the private rented sector.

Harriet Harman: This is the central issue in the Government’s justification for a policy that the Deputy Prime Minister has brought forward and voted for. He obviously does not want to admit that for 96% of tenants, there is no smaller home to go to. No wonder councils are saying that the discretionary housing fund is completely inadequate to help all the families who cannot move and are falling into arrears. Does he recognise that this is a cruel and unfair policy that he should not have voted for? He should repeal it now.

Nicholas Clegg: Of course I accept that for some households the change from one system to another creates real dilemmas that need to be addressed through the money that we are making available to local authorities. The right hon. and learned Lady cites a figure. To be honest, lots of wildly different figures have been cited about the policy’s impact. That is why we are commissioning independent research to understand its impact. I suspect that it varies enormously between one part of the country and another, and one local authority and another. That is why we are trebling the resources that we making available to local authorities.

Dominic Raab: The Deputy Prime Minister has specific responsibility for implementing the programme for government and likes to take special ownership of the chapter on tax, a key aim of which is to help lower and middle-income earners. I have a Lib Dem briefing that states:
	“£50,000”
	is
	“a very large salary: these are not middle income earners.”
	It also says:
	“We are looking at how”
	they
	“could make a further contribution.”
	Why does he want to clobber the middle classes?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not, and as we made clear at the time the £50,000 figure does not represent any policy of my party. However, I will not be shy about parading the fact that it is because of Liberal Democrats in government that we are giving a huge tax cut to over
	20 million basic rate taxpayers, a policy that I was warned by the hon. Gentleman’s party leader at the time of the last general election was not deliverable. It has been delivered because of Liberal Democrats in government.

Debbie Abrahams: According to the Papworth Trust, nine out of 10 disabled people are having to cut back on food or heating because of the bedroom tax. The discretionary housing payments are derisory: they give £2.09 to disabled people, compared with the £14 that they are losing through the bedroom tax. How do the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister justify that? Is that the mark of a civilised society? Since it is not in the coalition agreement, will he call for it to be scrapped?

Nicholas Clegg: I read in the Sunday papers that the Labour party was going to get even tougher on welfare than the coalition, yet it has opposed £83 billion-worth of welfare savings. We have to bring the housing benefits bill down somehow. I assume that our rationale for the change is exactly the reason why, in government for 13 years, Labour maintained the same rules for households receiving housing benefit in the private rented sector.

Mr Speaker: I call Harriet Baldwin. Not here.

Peter Bone: Could the Deputy Prime Minister let us have the Government’s view on having televised party leader debates before the next general election? Will he ensure that the fourth party is allowed to take part in the debate so that he would be able to speak? [Interruption.]

Nicholas Clegg: It is the sting in the tail that I always love. The hon. Gentleman must rehearse his questions endlessly—but they are good; it was a good one today. As he knows, that is not a subject, thankfully perhaps, of Government policy. It is a subject for discussion between the broadcasters, who will have their own views, and the political parties. He should speak to his own party leader about his party’s view on these things. I think that the innovation of televised leader debates was a good one. Millions of people found it a good opportunity to see how the party leaders measured up against each other and I think that we should repeat them.

Luciana Berger: I listened carefully to the Deputy Prime Minister’s answers about the bedroom tax. He kept referring to “some households”. However, does he agree with his own party that the bedroom tax discriminates against the most vulnerable in our society? Will he join his party in calling for the tax to be scrapped?

Nicholas Clegg: My party has not called for the policy to be scrapped. It has debated—

Emily Thornberry: Why not?

Nicholas Clegg: For exactly the same reason that the hon. Lady and her party maintained precisely the same policy in the private rented sector for 13 years. That spectacular act of inconsistency may seem normal to a party that is used to crashing the economy and then claiming that nothing was wrong, but I hope that she will agree that the benefits bill generally and the housing benefits bill in particular need to be brought under some semblance of control. We need to take difficult decisions. We need to provide hard cash, as we are, for hard cases. That is why we have trebled the discretionary housing payment.

Annette Brooke: Given the success of the city deals and the emergence of city regions, what plans does the Deputy Prime Minister have for further decentralisation to include more rural areas?

Nicholas Clegg: That is one of the reasons why I so warmly welcome the appointment of the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) because he has demonstrated extraordinary personal commitment to this wider agenda of devolution and decentralisation. As my hon. Friend will know, we are examining the case for 20 more city deals, and we will then be seeking to roll out a much more extensive programme of decentralisation on the back of the Heseltine recommendations, which I hope will leave all of our country far more decentralised now than we found it back in 2010.

Yvonne Fovargue: In the borough of Wigan over 100 tenants have moved into the private rented sector since April, where rents are between £700 and £1,200 higher than council rents. Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm therefore that, rather than falling, the housing benefit bill is likely to rise as a result of the bedroom tax?

Nicholas Clegg: I hope the hon. Lady will accept that there is an underlying problem. We have lots of people on the social rented sector waiting list. There are 1.8 million households on the waiting list and about 1.5 million bedrooms in the social rented sector are not being used. We need somehow to make sure that those people who do not have homes are better matched with available homes. At the same time we have many families living in very overcrowded conditions. Those are the problems: those are the imbalances of the system that we are trying to straighten out. I accept that that leads to some hard cases. They need to be treated fairly and compassionately.

Andrew George: What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure the UK maximises the opportunity for green growth and green jobs across the UK?

Nicholas Clegg: My view is that an island such as ours has a huge commercial opportunity, particularly with the capacity for offshore wind that we have as a country. It might sound odd to say that there is a commercial opportunity in the face of such a grave threat as climate change, but there is a commercial opportunity if we can show that we have the technologies,
	the science, the companies and the strategies to adapt to these new environmental realities. I think that that would be a great opportunity to create jobs for many thousands of people throughout the country.

Emma Lewell-Buck: My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party has stated strong support for lowering the voting age and giving a voice to our 16 and 17-year-olds. Their futures are decided by many of the decisions that are taken in this House. The Deputy Prime Minister said he supports this position, but three years after taking up his post no action has been taken. When can Britain’s young people expect him to live up to his commitments?

Nicholas Clegg: Government Members have always been very open about the fact that there is disagreement between the two coalition parties. I strongly believe that the voting age should be brought down to 16. I do not see why 17-years-olds are not able to vote when they have so many other roles and responsibilities in British society. It is not something we have included in the coalition agreement, but my views on the matter have not changed.

Stephen Gilbert: “Drekly” is a Cornish expression that means doing something maybe some time in the future, possibly never. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that in terms of devolving greater powers to the people of Cornwall, drekly is not an answer he will ever give from the Dispatch Box?

Nicholas Clegg: Since I only just heard that term I doubt very much I would use it at the Dispatch Box, and it is absolutely not our intention to delay further progress on devolving powers and decentralising control over how money is raised and spent across all parts of the United Kingdom, including Cornwall. We are doing that in the steps I described earlier: a first wave of city deals, a second wave of city deals, and then implementing the recommendations of the Heseltine review.

Kelvin Hopkins: A number of countries have abolished the second Chambers of their Parliaments, and Ireland has just decided to follow suit. About half of all Labour Back Benchers in a recent previous Parliament voted for a unicameral Parliament. Will the Deputy Prime Minister now accept that that is one reasonable option for reform of the House of Lords?

Nicholas Clegg: Notwithstanding my frustration that we did not manage to introduce even a smidgeon of democracy into the other place, I am not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and say that therefore we should scrap the place altogether. I remain of the view that there are virtues in having a tension—a balance—between two Chambers. That is the virtue of bicameral systems all over the democratic world. I just have this old-fashioned view that it is best done when both Chambers are elected by the people they purport to represent.

Philip Hollobone: In his keynote speech to the National House-Building Council on 22 November last year, the Deputy Prime Minister highlighted the 5,500 unit housing development to the east of Kettering as a major project that needed infrastructure support, but since then its £30 million bid to the regional growth fund for a related junction improvement has been turned down. Will he agree to meet a delegation from Kettering to discuss how, across government, heads could be knocked together to ensure that local people get the infrastructure they need to cope with all these extra houses?

Nicholas Clegg: I can certainly ensure that officials who run the bidding process in the regional growth fund are able to meet those who put together the application in Kettering. As my hon. Friend knows, this is, thankfully, not something that politicians decide; it is decided on an objective basis and a panel, chaired by Lord Heseltine, filters and assesses the bids before they come before Ministers. More generally, I know that colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government would be more than happy to meet him and his colleagues from Kettering to look at making sure that the infrastructure is indeed available to the local community.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Is the desperate scarcity of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties for rent in Ogmore, coupled with the growth in the number of abandoned three-bedroom houses and added to the rise in debt arrears of every housing authority, which prevents them from making the necessary refurbishments, an intended consequence of his policies on benefits and the bedroom tax?

Nicholas Clegg: The whole system is not working as it should—[Interruption.] The whole system we inherited from the hon. Gentleman’s Government was one where we had 1.8 million people on the housing waiting list, hundreds of thousands of families living in overcrowded accommodation and other people receiving housing benefit for more bedrooms than they actually needed. That is the system we are trying to sort out. There are many features to this, which is why we decided that, in exactly the same way as his Government supported the rules in the private rented sector, we would apply the same rules in the social rented sector.

Andrew Stephenson: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the excellent Speaker’s parliamentary placement scheme run by the Social Mobility Foundation and supported by many across this House. I will shortly be welcoming a new member of staff through that programme. Will he join me in welcoming its success in getting more people from a diverse range of backgrounds into politics and advancing the cause of social mobility?

Nicholas Clegg: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend said. The scheme is excellent and it is part of a creeping culture change, whereby everyone is realising, in the private sector, the public sector, Parliament and Whitehall, that work experience places and internships should, wherever possible, be based on what people know rather than who they know. That is reflected in this truly excellent scheme.

Valerie Vaz: What discussions has the Deputy Prime Minister had with the Justice Secretary about his recent announcement that he is going to repeal the Human Rights Act as early as next year?

Nicholas Clegg: There will be no repeal of the Human Rights Act during the course of this Parliament under this coalition Government.

Rehman Chishti: The Deputy Prime Minister recently warned the United Nations that it was in danger of becoming a
	“relic of a different time”
	and that the Security Council should be reformed. Does he believe that the reform should also include limiting the veto?

Nicholas Clegg: The primary focus of reform of the UN Security Council, which is an anachronism—it is based on an international pecking order that has changed out of all recognition since it was formed—needs to be on the composition of its permanent members, rather than on their respective voting rights. That remains the focus of this Government; we seek to champion the case of other nations—Germany, a member from Africa and one from other hemispheres—to be represented at the top table of the United Nations.

Angus MacNeil: Is the Deputy Prime Minister in any way uneasy about the manner in which large cash donors to some political parties still find their way into the House of Lords—a situation that would disgrace any banana republic?

Nicholas Clegg: I do not think that it is wrong by definition to say that someone who is committed to or has supported a political party should somehow be barred for life from showing their support by serving that party in the House of Lords. In general terms, not only should we reform the House of Lords and make it not a plaything for party leaders but something for the British people, but we should take big money out of British politics more generally.

Simon Wright: What role does the Deputy Prime Minister envisage that successful city deals, such as that proposed for Norwich, will play in the development of local growth funds from 2015, particularly in relation to the skills agenda?

Nicholas Clegg: I know that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), is deep in discussions on the Norwich city deal this very week. I hope that will lead to a successful conclusion soon enough. The first wave of city deals—I have seen this for myself in Sheffield—shows that the devolution in powers over skills from Whitehall to the town hall and the local enterprise partnerships is providing a fantastic boost to the provision of skills, particularly for young people who are seeking to get into work.

Ian Lavery: The introduction of the dreaded bedroom tax has hammered thousands of people, mainly disabled, up and down the UK. Recent research shows that the Government wildly exaggerated the potential savings—why is that?

Nicholas Clegg: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the study from the university of York that was published recently. The details of that study show that it is based on partial information. We simply do not know yet whether the impact or the purported savings are as big or small as the university of York study has implied, but we need to ensure that they are considered independently and objectively so that we can all agree on the basic facts, whatever our disagreements about the policy.

Julian Smith: Given the Deputy Prime Minister’s welcome recent criticisms of The Guardian newspaper and its potential breaches of the Official Secrets Act and the Terrorism Acts, will he encourage the Cabinet Office to take a tougher line than hitherto as matters proceed over the month ahead?

Nicholas Clegg: My view is that as a matter of course any publication of technical details that are, frankly, not of a great deal of interest to the non-technical reader of our newspapers but might be of huge interest to people who want to do this country harm are not a good thing. Having said that, however, I think that there is an entirely legitimate debate about whether the laws we have in place were properly framed for the power of the technologies available to our agencies and to those who wish to harm us and about whether our oversight arrangements for the work of the agencies are as strong, transparent and credible as they need to be.

Graham Stringer: Every right hon. and hon. Member has been elected on a constituency basis; nobody has been elected on a national basis. Would it not revitalise democracy if we changed the balance of allowed funding in general elections from a national level to a constituency level and got away from these pseudo-presidential elections?

Nicholas Clegg: The recommendations of Sir Christopher Kelly’s committee on party funding reform, particularly with their strict limits on donation caps, would have an analogous effect as they would significantly decrease the ability of large individual donations to be siphoned directly to national parties. As I said before, however, the cross-party consensus necessary to underpin any party funding reform has eluded us once again.

Mark Williams: In the spirit of what my right hon. Friend said earlier about devolution, when will we finally hear the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Silk commission, which are of critical importance to the people of Wales?

Nicholas Clegg: I understand the impatience for progress on the adoption of the Silk recommendations. As my hon. Friend knows, we have done some work latterly on the implications of devolution of aspects of the system of stamp duty. I am a huge supporter of the
	thinking behind the Silk commission, I am acutely aware that it is supported by all parties in Wales and I hope that we will be able to make progress on it without further delay.

Barry Sheerman: Has the Deputy Prime Minister seen the recent research that shows that the High Speed 2 rail line, rather than bringing strength and resurrecting the cities of the midlands and the north, will mean that more power will be sucked back to London and the south-east?

Nicholas Clegg: I find such research utterly specious. I wish the Labour party would decide whether it is for or against HS2. It is betraying the north of England and the great cities of the north by being so equivocal about HS2. In my view that is the most important infrastructure projects for this country’s future and it will play a crucial role in healing the long, long divide that has existed between the north and the south of our country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, who can try to be accommodated elsewhere on other question sessions. We must now move on.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

The Attorney-General was asked—

Rape and Domestic Violence Prosecutions

Andy Sawford: What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on increasing the number of prosecutions for rape and domestic violence.

Rehman Chishti: What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of domestic violence.

Peter Aldous: What recent discussions he has had with the Director of Public Prosecutions on the prosecution of cases involving allegations of domestic violence.

Oliver Heald: The Attorney-General and I regularly discuss the effective prosecution of cases of violence against women and girls, including both domestic violence and rape, with the Director of Public Prosecutions. Discussions also take place between the DPP, the police and the Home Office. In 2012-13 the proportion of such cases resulting in conviction increased to 74.3% for domestic violence and 63.2% for rape.

Andy Sawford: Under this Government more and more cases of both rape and domestic violence are being dropped by the police without being referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution, leaving
	offenders unpunished and free and leaving victims vulnerable. What are the Government going to do about this?

Oliver Heald: The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government are aiming to increase the number not only of prosecutions, but of successful ones which result in conviction. On 26 September this year the Director of Public Prosecutions held a meeting with all the other stakeholders—the police, the Home Office, the College of Policing and the Attorney-General’s Office—to look at why the referrals from police to the CPS had fallen. Six actions were agreed at that time.

Rehman Chishti: Does the Solicitor-General share my concerns that for 2012-13 around 30% of defendants for domestic violence were aged under 24, and more than 2,000 were between 14 and 17 years old? What are the Government doing to tackle domestic violence among young people?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend has a strong record of campaigning on this issue and he is absolutely right: it is of concern that young people are perpetrating domestic violence. The Government’s action plan for violence against women and girls includes a programme to increase understanding and awareness of these issues, and the DPP’s national scrutiny panel last year focused on teenage relationship abuse. The CPS is putting together specific training for prosecutors on issues to take into account when they are prosecuting cases and also to support the victims.

Peter Aldous: Taking into account the gravity of the offence, there is a concern that too many cautions are being issued in domestic violence cases. If this is established to be happening, will the Solicitor-General work with the Home Secretary to address it?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend raises an important point. As he will know, the Secretary of State for Justice has announced a wider review of out of court disposals, but at the recent meeting which I mentioned, convened by the Director of Public Prosecutions, it was agreed that there needs to be a closer analysis of domestic violence figures and how out-of-court disposals are being dealt with. That is ongoing.

Emily Thornberry: The Solicitor-General has given us a rather tantalising answer, telling us that in September there was a meeting on ensuring that more cases were taken by the police and given to the Crown Prosecution Service for charging. We are all concerned that the CPS is not getting enough cases in front of it on which to make decisions. The Solicitor-General tells us that six actions have been agreed. Would he like to tell us what they are?

Oliver Heald: I did not want to trespass on Mr Speaker’s good will, but I am delighted to set out the six actions. First, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary will carry out a themed inspection of domestic violence, liaising closely with the Home Office and the CPS. Secondly, the evidence that I have just mentioned about how out-of-court disposals are dealt with will be examined in more detail to see what is happening in this area. Thirdly, the performance of the
	CPS is being closely examined to see whether there are differences between areas in the way in which cases are referred. The fourth action entails looking at the independent domestic violence adviser network and making sure that it is performing consistently across the country. Fifthly, six areas are being reviewed and cases which were not referred to the police are being examined closely to see why. Sixthly, the Crown Prosecution Service is going to give further advice to the police about how to pursue cases without the witnesses giving evidence.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Robert Halfon, assuming that he can still remember the original question.

Robert Halfon: Just about, Mr Speaker.
	In 2012 there was the tragic death in my constituency of Eystna Blunnie, a victim of domestic violence. The CPS admitted that there had been a failure to prosecute the murderer for a previous assault. What steps are my hon. and learned Friend and the Government taking to ensure that the CPS properly follows through prosecutions of perpetrators of domestic violence?

Oliver Heald: Of course, the key is to have regular meetings and to issue the sort of guidelines that the Director of Public Prosecutions has done. If my hon. Friend wishes to write to me about the case he mentioned, I will certainly ensure that any review that is still available is undertaken.

Fiona Mactaggart: As the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) pointed out, this is a serious matter, and the consequences are serious. In Thames Valley last year there were 9,804 recorded incidents of crime involving domestic violence, but a further 22,627 incidents were reported to the police, and we know that such cases sometimes end in a tragic death. I fear that the hon. and learned Gentleman’s six actions are a bit laid back. What is he going to do?

Oliver Heald: First, the six actions relate to one important aspect: ensuring that referrals come through from the police to the CPS. But let us be clear that over recent years huge progress has been made, in both the proportion of cases that are prosecuted and the conviction rates achieved. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need a cross-governmental strategy, which we have in the action plan of the interministerial group on violence against women and girls, so there is no complacency in that regard, but she must recognise that there are achievements as well as areas that need improvement.

Vulnerable Witnesses

Stephen Metcalfe: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that adequate provision is made to support vulnerable witnesses in sexual abuse or domestic violence cases.

Neil Parish: What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to ensure that adequate provision is made to support vulnerable witnesses in sexual abuse or domestic violence cases.

Oliver Heald: The Crown Prosecution Service takes allegations of sexual abuse and domestic violence very seriously and ensures that prosecutors are well equipped to handle those cases. There is also the national network of witness care units, whose role is to support victims. The House will want to know that the Director of Public Prosecutions will publish final guidelines on prosecuting cases of child sexual abuse shortly.

Stephen Metcalfe: I thank the Solicitor-General for his answer. Will he also look at what more can be done to support those who have been the victims of psychological or emotional abuse, because although there is no physical effect, the mental trauma can be quite debilitating?

Oliver Heald: My hon. Friend’s contribution is timely, as we have recently had mental health day. He is right that it is important to support such victims and witnesses, which is what the witness care units do. In addition, there is a range of guidance for prosecutors on issues such as the provision of therapy to vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. With regard to victims who have suffered mental trauma, there is guidance on how to help victims and witnesses with mental health issues, and the CPS also contributed to the Mind toolkit.

Neil Parish: Will my hon. and learned Friend outline what the special measures will be, how they will be granted for vulnerable witnesses and how they will help the court process to ensure that the trial is fair for all, particularly those witnesses in these very difficult cases?

Oliver Heald: The special measures available for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses include: giving evidence from behind a screen, by live television link or in private by clearing the court room of the public; removal of wigs and gowns by judges and lawyers; use of video-recorded evidence-in-chief; examination of the witness through an intermediary; and provision of communication aids. Many of us are strong supporters of one special measure, pre-recorded cross-examination, for which I think there is a measure of support across the House. It has not yet been implemented, but it is coming soon.

Ann Coffey: rose—

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady is almost overcome with excitement. I call Ann Coffey.

Ann Coffey: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
	Children have particular difficulty in communicating, and registered intermediaries are crucial in enabling them to give the best possible evidence in court, but they are being appointed in a tiny minority of cases. What more can the Solicitor-General do to make sure that the Crown Prosecution Service appoints better registered intermediaries for children at an early stage?

Oliver Heald: As the hon. Lady will remember, that is one of the six issues that is being considered. I agree that it is important to ensure that the right support is given in every case. Of course, support would not be needed in every case, but where it is, it should be available.

Andrew Gwynne: The Solicitor-General will know that the specialist domestic courts that were established under the previous Labour Government helped to speed up prosecutions and reduce attrition. Why, then, have his Government gone about closing them down?

Oliver Heald: Although referrals are down, the proportion of the caseload that is domestic violence or rape cases has held up strongly, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s allegation stands up. However, it is certainly true that we need to ensure that these cases are dealt with expeditiously.

Margot James: I thank the Attorney-General for the report he commissioned, following our meeting with the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate, on the disclosure of medical and counselling records of victims of sexual abuse and rape. Will he or the Solicitor-General meet me to discuss the implementation of these recommendations and the need for further action in related areas?

Oliver Heald: As my hon. Friend knows, the Attorney-General and I were very grateful for her intervention in this regard. The report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate bears that out, and either one or both of us would be happy to meet her to discuss taking this forward.

Paul Goggins: May I draw the Solicitor-General’s attention to the experience of one of my constituents who has been identified as a potential witness in a case of serious sexual abuse going back over many, many years? This has caused him great distress, and, frankly, he is not receiving the support that he desperately needs. Will the Solicitor-General and the Attorney-General look again at what more can be done to support vulnerable witnesses over the many months they have to wait while their case comes to trial?

Oliver Heald: If the right hon. Gentleman writes to me I will make sure that the case is given whatever extra support is needed. As regards the point he makes, he is absolutely right. As somebody who has prosecuted these cases, I know that having a properly supported witness who feels confident in giving evidence is key.

David Davies: I am currently dealing with a case where a vulnerable witness has been forced to leave her own home as a result of the abuse she has suffered, and the offender is now walking around and living in that house. Does the Solicitor-General agree that that is an absolutely disgraceful situation? If I send him the full details, will he look into it and find ways in which I can help this constituent?

Oliver Heald: I would be more than happy to discuss the case with my hon. Friend. Obviously it is difficult for me to comment, not having seen the papers, but I make that offer.

Exit Payouts (CPS)

Andy Slaughter: If he will discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions ways of limiting public expenditure on exit payouts at the Crown Prosecution Service.

Dominic Grieve: I regularly meet the Director of Public Prosecutions, and this subject has been discussed. The CPS has reduced its staff numbers by 1,902, or 21%, during the current spending review period, while improving overall performance in its delivery of a public prosecution service. These reductions will save the public purse a forecast £77.8 million per annum by 2015-16. Expenditure on staff exits will substantially reduce in the next financial year as the CPS will have completed its major programme of achieving significant staff reductions.

Andy Slaughter: Given that, by his own admission, the Attorney-General is losing a quarter of all prosecutors, perhaps it is not surprising that he spent £50 million getting rid of them, but why has £10 million of that gone on packages of more than £100,000, including ones of up to £300,000, when the rump of the service is starved of resources?

Dominic Grieve: The payments in each case were those to which the individuals were contractually entitled. I am aware of the recent press coverage of two payments, but it relied on a series of assumptions that have been shown not to be accurate. Moreover, in the case of one of those two cases, the payments were in fact made in 2009 and were part of the redundancy payments approved by the previous Government, which we changed.

Criminal Sentences

Gareth Johnson: On how many occasions during the last 12 months his Department has referred a criminal sentence to the Court of Appeal for review on the grounds that it was unduly lenient.

Dominic Grieve: As my hon. Friend will be aware, the power to refer sentences is an exceptional remedy reserved for those cases in which the sentence is so far below the range of sentences it was reasonable to impose that public confidence in the criminal justice system risks being damaged. For 2012, the most recent period for which statistics on unduly lenient sentence cases have been published, we received 435 requests for sentences to be reviewed, of which 82 were referred as unduly lenient and heard by the Court of Appeal. For the period ending 30 September 2013, we have received 352 requests for sentences to be reviewed, of which 57 have been referred to the Court of Appeal and have been, or are due to be, heard by the Court.

Gareth Johnson: In that case, could the Attorney-General please assure the House that he will give due consideration to widening the scope to appeal against unduly lenient sentences? I am sure he will agree that weak sentences by our courts let down the victim, the judiciary and the whole of society.

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend will be aware that the scheme is currently restricted to a list of serious offences. It is right to say that we have added to that list in recent years. In August 2012, the offence of trafficking people for exploitation was added, as were racially or religiously aggravated assaults in October 2003 and various offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 in 2006. It is always possible for cases to be added to the list, but it is important to bear in mind that references take up court time and there must be a limit to the
	number of cases that the Court of Appeal can hear. One must also bear in mind that there has to be a degree of finality and these things have to be balanced out. If my hon. Friend knows of any cases or types of offences that he thinks might be added, I am always happy to consider such matters. It is, obviously, ultimately a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, but we discuss these matters and will act if we think it necessary.

Keith Vaz: I am usually a great fan of the Attorney-General, but the way in which he has handled the case of Elena Fanaru is very disappointing. She now lies in a grave in Romania. The man who knocked her down and killed her, having fled the scene of the accident, got only one year and four months in prison. When are we going to make sure that such people really do face justice?

Dominic Grieve: I am not going to comment on an individual case. I am quite satisfied that, in so far as I have been able to have any role in this matter, I have acted properly. In so far as it is a matter where the law needs to be changed, that is for this House to decide.

Philip Davies: May I urge the Attorney-General to work with the Lord Chancellor to extend the period in which an appeal can be made against an unduly lenient sentence from the current 28 days? Could he also give a word of encouragement to campaigners such as the excellent Families Fighting for Justice who claim it would make a big difference to victims of the most serious offences?

Dominic Grieve: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Certainly, the question of the time limit will be looked at by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor. I am certainly open to suggestions, although it is right to say that if we have a new time limit there will always be the risk that it will also be exceeded in some cases. It is important that cases should be reviewed quickly. In some cases the defendant/offender may not have been given a custodial sentence, and to have a long period of delay before a custodial sentence is then imposed is clearly undesirable.

Human Trafficking

Caroline Nokes: What steps the Director of Public Prosecutions
	is taking to raise awareness amongst prosecutors of how to deal with cases of human trafficking; and what assessment he has made of whether current legislation is being used to prosecute such cases effectively.

Oliver Heald: Guidance is issued by the Crown Prosecution Service and it is regularly updated. There is a training programme for the CPS and the Director of Public Prosecutions will host a round-table event later this year to consider how best to strengthen prosecutions.

Caroline Nokes: I thank the Solicitor-General for that response. This Friday 18 October is anti-slavery day, which aims to highlight human trafficking and modern-day slavery. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the key problems is that those crimes are very well concealed and seldom brought to the attention of the authorities and the police, and that wider public awareness, as well as the awareness of GPs and teachers, is required.

Oliver Heald: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to publishing a draft modern-day slavery Bill later this year. There have been amendments to the law to enable more prosecutions to occur. The round-table event later this year will be important in raising awareness, as she suggests.

Jim Shannon: The Northern Ireland Assembly has recently brought in legislation on human trafficking that is perhaps unique in the United Kingdom. Has the Solicitor-General had any discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly and, if so, what was the outcome?

Oliver Heald: I have not had such a discussion, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to talk to me about the issue, I would be happy to do so.

Peter Bone: Will the Solicitor-General press the Home Secretary to consider this matter in drafting the modern-day slavery Bill?

Oliver Heald: The details of the Bill will be published in draft, so my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to contribute at that point. I pay tribute to the work that he does with the all-party group on human trafficking.

Regulation of the Private Rented Sector

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Jeremy Corbyn: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the regulation of letting agents; to protect tenants’ deposits; to require the enforcement of environmental and energy-efficiency standards in private-sector rented accommodation; to amend the law on secure tenancies; to provide for fair rent to be applicable to all rented accommodation; to require landlords not to discriminate against people in receipt of state benefits; to require local authorities to establish a private rented sector office; and for connected purposes.
	I first introduced this Bill earlier this year on 26 February. Since then, the debate about the regulation of the private rented sector has gathered pace. It is now much more commonplace for all of us to be invited to endless seminars on the private rented sector and stories abound about the way in which people are treated in the sector. This matter ought to be part of the mainstream political debate on housing in this country.
	There are essentially three elements to housing in this country: owner-occupation, housing provided by local authorities or housing associations, and the private rented sector. I will take them in turn. Owner-occupation has been the cornerstone of the housing policies of successive Governments for a long time. However, the rate of owner-occupation is steadily and steeply in decline, to the extent that it is well below the high point of 70%. There is every sign that it will continue to drop over the decades, as mortgages become more expensive and more difficult to secure for people on average incomes or below, despite the Government’s home-ownership objectives.
	The second area is council housing and housing association properties. Council housing provides good quality, secure accommodation, but it is in desperately short supply, particularly in London and the south-east. I am the first to admit that the solution to our housing problems lies in the much more rapid development of much more council housing all over the country. That would provide a good quality way out of housing desperation for many people. I hope that that policy is increasingly accepted and developed.
	Although I recognise that housing associations were founded to bring in good quality housing on a similar basis to council housing, I am becoming increasingly concerned about their behaviour and conduct. Increasingly, they act like housing companies, not social landlords, and see themselves as being in the property market, rather than in the provision of housing for people who are in desperate need. That area is in need of tight regulation.
	The third area is the private rented sector, which has traditionally been very small in this country. It has now started to rise rapidly. Nationally, it makes up 17% of the housing stock. That is predicted to rise to 22% by 2025. It is an extremely different story in some parts of the country. In the borough of Islington, which I am happy to represent with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who is here to indicate her approval of the Bill, the make-up
	is very different. Owner-occupation now makes up less than 30% of housing stock across the borough and is declining fast. Social housing—housing association and council housing—is about 40% of the stock and rising, as the local authority, to its great credit, manages to undertake some building programmes to ensure that people have a decent roof over their head. However, the private rented sector makes up well over 30% of the housing in the borough.
	Some who rent in the private sector in London are very wealthy, can afford to pay any price that is offered and do not particularly care about it. There are also those on middle incomes—young, professional people who move into London and pay an extraordinarily high proportion of what ought to be a decent wage on private rents. Then there are people on very low incomes who cannot get anywhere near the housing ladder but cannot get anywhere near getting a council property either. They are stuck in expensive private rented accommodation, often paying half their take-home pay just to keep an inadequate, expensive roof over their head.
	There are also people who are placed in private rented accommodation by the local authority, and they are the ones who suffer the most. They are often in inadequate, badly maintained accommodation with landlords who know that the tenants are in no position to complain about anything.
	The one thing that unites all those groups is insecurity about their housing. I guess that most Members are owner-occupiers and do not feel any great insecurity about their housing situation. It is not so for a large number of people in this country. We therefore need effective regulation of all private rented accommodation, so that there are decent environmental standards and not excessive energy bills. We need strict regulation of what letting agents do, because currently anyone can set up as a letting agent straight away. At the very least, we need Criminal Records Bureau checks, and we need anti-discrimination legislation to be enforced on letting agencies—not just when there is discrimination against people on housing benefit, but when there is discrimination against people of minority ethnic communities, which is absolutely disgraceful and is illegal under general anti-discrimination law.
	We also need the guaranteed return of deposits and much longer tenancies. Traditionally, assured shorthold tenancies last for six months in this country. Sometimes they are repeated and sometimes they are not, but they are almost never repeated if the tenant complains about conditions or requires the landlord to make some repairs during the first six months. The tenant finds that their tenancy is simply terminated. We therefore also need tenancies of at least five years, to reduce the level of insecurity.
	When the Government tell me that the cost of private rented accommodation is one of the main drivers of this country’s large housing allowance bill, I absolutely agree with them. However, the way to deal with it is not by restricting the level of housing benefit paid to tenants but by controlling the level of rent that is paid. Other countries seem to manage that well, and I feel deeply angry when I meet people in my advice bureau every week who tell me that they are, in effect, being socially cleansed out of an area they have lived in for a long time
	because the housing benefit is inadequate for the level of rent that is charged. They are being forced to scatter all over London and all over the country.
	Some colleagues tell me that regulation of the private rented sector and rent levels is not a problem in their constituency, and I understand that. There is a vast discrepancy in rent levels across the country, from £300 to £400 a week in London to £100 a week, or in some cases even slightly less, in other parts of the country. However, if the House does not pass strict regulation of the private rented sector now, starting in London and the south-east, the problem will spread across the country as the sector gets bigger and bigger.
	My Bill would bring about better security, such as there is in Germany, where tenancies last almost a lifetime. It would bring about better conditions for tenants and much more stable communities. In some wards in my constituency, population turnover is 30% a year, almost all occasioned by the insecurity of the private rented sector. What does that do to the stability of a community? Where does it get its community activists, school governors and movers and shakers from if there is no security and no investment in that community?
	Finally, the Bill would bring about rent regulation. Some people are not keen on that—some landlords do not like it, but some recognise that the stability provided by a fair rent formula of the sort we used to have in this country would be a useful step forward. My Bill seeks to establish local authority run, fair-rent regulation authorities, the first of which would cover the whole of Greater London. We would start with the principle that rent should bear some resemblance to the cost of a property—often it bears none whatsoever—and ensure that we gain the security of tenure required to bring about a much better and fairer society.
	I hope the House will support this Bill today to end the insecurity and injustice, and recognise that some local authorities such as Newham and Oxford have made enormous steps forward to try and bring about some degree of regulation and stability in the private rented sector. The Bill is not a threat to good landlords who seek to do the right thing and look after their tenants; it is a threat to the cowboys, bad landlords, discriminators and those who refuse to repair their properties or return deposits at the end of a tenure. I hope the House will support the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Jeremy Corbyn, Mark Durkan, Sir Bob Russell, Mr Elfyn Llwyd, Caroline Lucas, John Healey, John McDonnell, Katy Clark, Grahame M. Morris, Ms Diane Abbott, Mr David Lammy and Mr David Ward present the Bill.
	Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 114).

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Offence of forced marriage: Scotland

‘(1) A person commits an offence under the law of Scotland if he or she—
	(a) uses violence, threats or any other form of coercion for the purpose of causing another person to enter into a marriage, and
	(b) believes, or ought reasonably to believe, that the conduct may cause the other person to enter into the marriage without free and full consent.
	(2) A person commits an offence under the law of Scotland if he or she—
	(a) practises any form of deception with the intention of causing another person to leave the United Kingdom, and
	(b) intends the other person to be subjected to conduct outside the United Kingdom that is an offence under subsection (1) or would be an offence under that subsection if the victim were in Scotland.
	(3) “Marriage” means any religious or civil ceremony of marriage (whether or not legally binding).
	(4) It is irrelevant whether the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection(1) is directed at the victim of the offence under that subsection or another person.
	(5) A person commits an offence under subsection (1) or (2) only if, at the time of the coercion or deception—
	(a) the person or the victim or both of them are in Scotland,
	(b) neither the person nor the victim is in Scotland but at least one of them is habitually resident in Scotland, or
	(c) neither the person nor the victim is in the United Kingdom but at least one of them is a UK national.
	(6) “UK national” means an individual who is—
	(a) a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen;
	(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject; or
	(c) a British protected person within the meaning of that Act.
	(7) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
	(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
	(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine or both.’.—(Norman Baker.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.—(Norman Baker.)

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 49, 50, 62, 64, 72, and 75 to 77.

Norman Baker: I will be brief because, as Members will recall, clause 104 introduces a new offence of forced marriage. The new offence is an important part of our efforts to stamp out that appalling practice, and will send a clear message that it will not be tolerated. I am pleased the Scottish Government has also decided that forced marriage should be a criminal offence, and new clause 9 introduces a similar provision for Scotland. Breach of a forced marriage protection order is already a criminal offence in Scotland, so there is no need for a similar amendment to mirror clause 103, which makes that the case in England and Wales. The other amendments in the group are consequential on new clause 9.

Helen Jones: I was not in the Chamber yesterday, so may I welcome the Minister to his new post and let him know that any conspiracy theories he comes up with about me will probably be true?
	The Opposition accept the need to deal decisively with forced marriage in Scotland, as in England, and we are pleased that the Government are extending to Scotland provisions that make forcing someone into a marriage a criminal offence. We therefore support the new clause and its consequential amendments. It was clear from evidence taken in Committee that there are differing views on the issue, and some who are active in the sector oppose the use of criminal law in that area because they believe it would deter victims from reporting what is happening to them. That is an understandable view, but not one I share. Victims of forced marriage are British. They are of many ages, although many are young people. British boys and girls, of whatever colour, deserve the same protection as every other British boy and girl.
	It is important to make the point that forced marriages are not about religious beliefs—they are not condoned by any of the major faiths, whether Christianity, Islam or Hinduism. Forced marriages are about abuse, often of children. What we condemn as abuse in any other sector of society cannot be condoned because of the colour of a person’s skin, their ethnic background or their parents’ culture. I am therefore glad that new clause 9 will make coercing someone into a marriage a criminal offence in all parts of the UK. I hope we will give young people, their communities and others the confidence to challenge forced marriage and to stand up and say no, knowing that they are supported by the law throughout the country, and, I would hope, by others in the community.
	It is fair to say that, in some respects, Scotland has moved ahead of the rest of the UK on the matter because, as the Minister has said, breach of a forced marriage protection order is a criminal offence in Scotland, as it will be in the rest of the UK when the Bill becomes law. It is therefore clearly right that new clause 9 extends the criminal offence of coercing someone into a marriage into Scottish law. However, the UK Government and the Scottish Government need to do much more. No forced marriage protection orders have been issued in Scotland since its current legislation came into force, and yet no one would seriously argue that there were no forced marriages last year. In fact, the UK forced marriage unit gave support in 1,483 cases related to possible forced marriage. That is a high number, but the National
	Centre for Social research report published in 2009 estimated that there were between 5,000 and 8,000 reported cases throughout the UK each year. Of course, many cases go unreported.
	The Opposition therefore support the Government’s legislation for Scotland and the rest of the UK, but I should tell the Minister that the legislation by itself is not enough. We need to put in place a system that allows people to report when they are at risk of forced marriage, that encourages them to report, and that offers them the support they need. Currently, that is sadly lacking. For example, much more work needs to be done in schools, so that teachers are alert to the signs that a pupil might be being forced into marriage. Young people need to be educated so that, if they or one of their friends are at risk, they know where to seek help.
	I therefore ask the Minister to say what the Government are doing to raise awareness of forced marriage. Where is the money to fund such a campaign? In 2012, the forced marriage unit said that many agencies, whether those dealing with children or with vulnerable adults, still did not recognise forced marriage as a safeguarding issue. That is totally unacceptable. There is evidence that police throughout the UK recognise the need to deal with forced marriage proactively, but other agencies—not just schools, but colleges and health organisations—still have a long way to go. I hope Ministers discuss the measures needed with the Scottish Government, so that we can develop a common approach throughout these islands.
	We must have training not only for teachers to allow them to recognise the signs that their students are at risk, but for others. Teachers are important because, sometimes, they are the only person outside the family with whom a victim has contact at first. I remember the tragic case of Shafilea Ahmed in my area—she lived in the constituency of the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat). She was so desperate that she drank bleach when she was taken to Pakistan. Later, she was missing for a week before anyone from the school raised the fact that she was not there, despite the warning signs she had given. Teachers did not intervene, and health workers did not follow up or ask the right questions. In the end, she was tragically murdered. I tell the Minister that, although the legislation is welcome, the Opposition want to know what he will do to ensure there is not another Shafilea.
	Social services provision is struggling because of the draconian cuts the Minister’s Government are making to council services. Women’s refuges have lost a third of their budget, and refuges and specialist advice services are closing. There is evidence that services that cater for women from black and ethnic minority communities are particularly hard hit. One test of the willingness of both the Scottish Government and the coalition Government to enforce the provisions will be whether they provide the services that people need.

Jim Shannon: Is the hon. Lady’s submission to the House that more focus should be on certain cultural or ethnic groups rather than having a generic focus? I ask because the examples she gives—other hon. Members will give similar ones—come from certain cultural areas. Should the financial focus be on those areas to help them?

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman needs to differentiate services that protect women from violence and specialist provision for those dealing with forced marriages. They are two parts of the same thing, but the current evidence is that specialised services for black and ethnic minority women—services that they feel more comfortable accessing because the people there understand the cultural background—are being closed at a greater rate than other refuges. That is a worry.
	My point to the Minister is that the legislation is all very well, but unfortunately, unless he ensures that there are services to allow women and girls to make use of the legislation and access the services they need, the Opposition will be forced to conclude that the Government will the ends but are unwilling to fund the means. We need a much more joined-up approach from the Home Office, the Department for Education, the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government if the legislation is to protect people in future. We do not oppose but welcome the Government’s new clauses, but that is the test we will apply to the Government.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 9 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Fees for criminal record certificates etc

‘In Part 5 of the Police Act 1997 (criminal record certificates etc), in section 125 (regulations), after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	“(1A) In prescribing the amount of a fee that—
	(a) is payable in relation to applications under a particular provision of this Part, but
	(b) is not payable in relation to applications made by volunteers,
	the Secretary of State may take into account not only the costs associated with applications in relation to which the fee is payable but also the costs associated with applications under that provision made by volunteers.”’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Government new clause 28—Court and tribunal fees.
	Amendment 184,page115,line19, leave out clause 143.
	Amendment 95,in clause 143, page115,line26, leave out ‘the person was innocent of the offence’ and insert—
	‘no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered.’.
	Government amendments 137, 138, 66, 139, 74 and 83.

Damian Green: I will first deal with the Government’s proposals, although I am aware that hon. Members will wish to speak to other amendments. I will deal with those at the end of the debate on the group.
	The Government proposals in the group are on the setting of fees for two distinct public services. New clause 10 concerns fees charged by the Disclosure and Barring Service. It is Government policy—I imagine and hope that this is supported by hon. Members on
	both sides of the House—to encourage volunteering in our communities. To that end, it has long been the case that criminal record checks, where needed, such as in respect of work with children, are provided free of charge to volunteers. The new clause puts on a clear statutory basis the ability of the Home Secretary to take into account the cost of providing criminal record certificates and other services covered by part V of the Police Act 1997 when determining the fees charged for those services.

Julian Huppert: The Minister is making important points about ensuring that people are able to pay. As I understand it, it is not currently possible to get a basic disclosure within England and Wales—it has to go through Scotland. Will he look at ensuring that, where appropriate, basic applications are available and free?

Damian Green: I am conscious that at various times there have been difficulties with the practicalities of the system, and I take on board my hon. Friend’s point.
	The other services covered by part V of the Police Act 1997 when determining fees charged for services also apply to the new update service that was launched earlier this year. This will enable employers to verify whether existing criminal record certificates for those signed up to the service remain up to date, allowing us to ensure that the overall costs of the service now provided by the disclosure and barring service are fully recovered through fee income, and not subsidised by the taxpayer.
	Earlier this year, when the update service was introduced, we made interim arrangements under the Finance (No. 2) Act 1987 to provide the legal gateway for this measure to apply. However, the overall arrangement was complex and not entirely transparent. For that reason, we believe the new clause will benefit volunteers and the people and communities they support.
	New clause 28 contains substantive provisions to replace clause 147, which, as we made clear, was a placeholder clause. The new clause provides the Lord Chancellor with a general power to set fees at a level that exceeds the cost of the related services. The services are those provided by the courts in England and Wales, including the Court of Protection, the tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible and the Office of the Public Guardian. The primary focus of our proposals for using this power will be the courts of England and Wales. The courts play a vital role in our society, providing access to justice so that the public can assert their legal rights. Ensuring that they are properly resourced is essential to maintaining access to justice. This must be delivered when public spending is required to fall—deficit reduction is one of the Government’s key priorities—and the courts and those who use them must make a contribution.
	As new clause 28 makes clear, the purpose of enhanced fees is to finance an efficient and effective court system. This change to the way that fees are set will help to ensure that courts are properly resourced to deliver modern, efficient services so that access to justice is protected. The proposed legislation provides a general power; specific fees would be increased through secondary legislation. When a specific fee or fees are set at an enhanced
	level for the first time, the order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure—there will be full debate in both Houses. Any subsequent changes to those fees will be subject to the negative procedure.
	We will shortly be consulting on proposals to achieve full cost recovery, less remissions, in the civil and family courts. However, even on this basis the running of the court system in England and Wales costs more than £1 billion a year, so we need to go further in reducing the burden on taxpayers. We believe it is fair and proportionate that those who use the courts and can afford to do so should make a greater contribution to their overall funding. That is why we are bringing forward this provision to allow fees to be set above cost in some circumstances.
	Let me assure the House that we will not be using the power to set excessively high fees. In setting fees, the Lord Chancellor must have regard to the principle that access to the courts must not be denied. The new clause requires him to have regard to the overall financial position of the courts and tribunals, and the international competitiveness of the legal services market. We are not bringing forward specific plans for charging enhanced fees at this stage. We want to take some time to ensure that we get the measures right. As I said, we will consult widely on the proposals and look carefully at how any proposed court fees might compare with the overall cost of litigation, the value of the issues at stake and the fees charged by our international competitors. Following the consultation there will, as I have indicated, be full parliamentary scrutiny of any enhanced fees that we decide to introduce.
	Amendments 184 and 95 relate to the tests for eligibility for compensation following a miscarriage of justice. I propose that the House hears from the hon. Members who tabled them before I respond.

Jeremy Corbyn: I, with my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), tabled amendment 95. Does the Minister not recognise that he is proposing a dangerous step forward that would actually reduce the chances of overturning a miscarriage of justice case? Would the Guildford Four or the Birmingham Six have been declared innocent under his proposals?

Damian Green: As I said, I think it would be sensible, for the purposes of the debate and the convenience of the House, if the hon. Gentleman makes his case and I then respond to it at the end of the debate. I think that is better than pre-responding to the speech I suspect he will make. [Interruption.] I am happy to make the same speech twice, but you, Mr Speaker, might feel that that was out of order. If the hon. Gentleman wants a taste of what I am going to say, I do not agree with him, but I will wait to hear his fuller analysis to see if he can convince me in the course of the debate.

Mr Speaker: Order. I note the spirit in which the Minister of State made his remarks, but the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has said nothing disorderly. He might not have said as much as he has to say or as the Minister would like to hear, and we wait
	with bated breath to see whether the hon. Gentleman will spring from his seat to seek to catch my eye, but his behaviour has been orderly and respectful, as always.

Jack Dromey: I rise to speak on two matters; first, briefly, on enhanced fees. We are not opposed to the principle of what is being proposed, but it is clear from what the Minister has said that this is about more than full cost recovery, the kind for which we argued yesterday in respect of firearms. This is a revenue-raising measure. We will therefore scrutinise carefully any orders brought forward under the proposed legislation to ensure that any charges are reasonable, and that the interests of the administration of justice are best served.
	Amendment 95 relates to miscarriages of justice. I am proud to serve the city of Birmingham. In 1974, the city saw the most appalling terrorist outrage when, as a consequence of bombings by the Provisional IRA, 21 innocent citizens died. Six innocent people were then convicted of that terrorist outrage. I should make it clear that I have been a lifelong opponent of violence by the Provisional IRA. My mother and father were both Irish. I was also on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties for many years, and served as its chairman. In that period, we campaigned against terrorist violence and for justice at a time when it was sometimes difficult to stick one’s head up and say that what had happened to the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four was unacceptable. Sixteen years after the Birmingham Six were sent to prison, they were released and found to have been wrongly convicted.
	On behalf of the Opposition, I warmly welcome the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) are bringing this important issue to the Floor of the House. We are rightly proud of our judicial system, but we know that it is not perfect. The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four are but two examples of miscarriages of justice that highlight in extremis the consequences of getting it wrong; taking away years of a person’s life and damaging their reputation, their friends, family and colleagues. It is therefore entirely right that when such a miscarriage of justice occurs, the innocent people who have suffered are entitled to compensation.
	At the heart of our legal system lies the principle of innocent until proved guilty, and rightly so. However, Government changes to redefine the compensation test, limiting it to
	“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent of the offence”
	seem to fly in the face of this age-old principle. Under the Government’s new narrowed compensation tests, none of the Birmingham Six or Guildford Four would have been entitled to payments. Billy Power, one of the six men wrongly convicted in the 1970s for the Birmingham pub bombings, has warned that the changes would mean that
	“the standard presumption of innocence would be abolished”.
	And he is not alone. A report from the Westminster joint human rights commission said:
	“In our view, requiring proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt as a condition of obtaining compensation for wrongful conviction is incompatible with the presumption of innocence, which is protected by both the common law and Article 6(2) ECHR. We recommend that clause 143 be deleted from the Bill because it is on its face incompatible with the Convention.”

Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman will hear if I have a chance to say a word, I am very supportive of what he is arguing for and of the amendment that his hon. Friends have tabled. With respect, though, I would like to correct something that he said. The opinion that he just quoted was that of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—not the Westminster convention, or whatever he called it—which is making exactly the argument that he is putting to the House.

Jack Dromey: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is of course right.
	We support a rigorous and fair justice system, but it must ensure that where a serious miscarriage of justice has happened, innocent people receive fair compensation for all that they have suffered, which, in the more extreme cases, can involve years of their lives. If a miscarriage of justice has taken place, it is the justice system’s mistake, and it should be its job to put it right, not to make it harder for innocent people to do so. If—God forbid!—we ever saw a repeat of what happened with the Birmingham bombings and the subsequent convictions, it would be absolutely unthinkable that those people would not be entitled to compensation.
	I very much hope that the Minister will respond constructively to the amendment and our representations. We intend to support the amendment in the other place, where we believe that further detailed scrutiny should take place, because the Government have got it wrong and we must put that wrong right.

Julian Huppert: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the opening comments.
	I thoroughly support new clause 10, because it is right that we recognise volunteers. Too often, people have had to pay far too much to go through the processes necessary to volunteer, as I know from my own voluntary work, although that was more of a problem when people needed separate certificates for everything they did. I am glad that we have made some progress at least.
	There is an issue, however, about the availability of the right level of disclosure for criminal record certificates. I thought I knew this area reasonably well, but I did not realise until recently that it was not possible to get a basic certificate—there are three levels: basic, standard and enhanced—listing unspent convictions in England and Wales; the only body that does it is Disclosure Scotland. While getting the pricing correct, therefore, we must also ensure availability. It seems perverse that only under Scots law can somebody get what most employers ought to have access to. Most employers do not realise that they should have the basic, rather than standard or enhanced certificate. I hope that Ministers will consider that point and ensure that while providing the right costings, we also get that right, and that the Government implement the relevant provisions in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
	On new clause 28, the Minister made a strong case for having some fees. I think we would all agree that if a Russian oligarch makes great use of our courts, they should make some contribution. None of us would suggest that their having to pay £1,000 or so would inhibit their ability to get justice. Perhaps the cost of using the courts should be a fraction of the fees going to the lawyers; that might be a safe way of ensuring that
	we make our fair share. That is not the route chosen, however, although it is quite tempting, given how large the legal fees are in many of these cases. It is not just Russian oligarchs, of course; it is anybody with a very big transaction. It seems right that they should contribute to the costs of our fantastic court system.
	We need to ensure, however, that people not in a position to pay are not hit. It should still be possible for people without money to access the courts, and in that, the fees system could help, because by taking more money from those who have lots of it, we could subsidise those who do not. I note that there is broad support for the idea that any money made should be reinvested in improving our court system and ensuring that it works well. Broadly, therefore, I am pleased to see the new clause.
	Clause 143 has been discussed passionately by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I share their huge concern about effectively requiring somebody to demonstrate their innocence, which in very many cases would be extremely hard to prove to the level required. It is not hard to think of cases where it would have been problematic; the shadow Minister described some of them, and I will not detain the House with a long list, but people have written to me with examples.

Mark Hunter: Go on!

Julian Huppert: It is nice to be encouraged by the Whips to speak at greater length, but I am sure we have enough to debate and I do not want to take time from the important debates coming up.
	On the concerns about clause 143, the hon. Member for Islington North has, of course, tabled his amendment, but the Joint Committee on Human Rights has also tabled an amendment that would get rid of the clause completely. I am not a lawyer, but my assessment is that the JCHR approach is probably a cleaner one, but both amendments aim to achieve exactly the same thing. I agree with the shadow Minister that we should flag this up as a big issue, but leave it to the other place to find the right answer. By then, I hope that the Government will have reflected on it and accepted the principle that it is incredibly hard for anybody absolutely to prove their innocence. That is a really tough threshold. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and that we can strike a better balance in the other place.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief; because of the odd timetable we have for the Bill, there is not much time to debate any of it. My remarks are concerned solely with amendment 95, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), and for which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) explained, there is strong support.
	Clause 143 will fundamentally overturn the huge changes made after the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four. For many years, along with Chris Mullin and many others, I was one of those who, from this position in the House, raised questions about the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, and I could paper the walls of my house with the letters of
	abuse we received for taking up their cases. None of us who took up those miscarriages of justice was ever in favour of the bombing and killing of civilians in any circumstances; we were, however, in favour of justice.
	The first person arrested under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 was Paul Hill, one of the Guildford Four, who had been a constituent of my constituency before I was elected, but was in prison when I was elected. Meeting him and the others in prison, I was struck by the sheer hopelessness of being locked up for an offence they did not commit, when every newspaper and commentator in the country said they were guilty and when their family members were abused in the street and vilified because they had a son, nephew or cousin in prison for an offence they did not commit. It made that campaign very difficult, but some very brave people stood up, and eventually those happy days when they were finally released brought about a fundamental change in the whole narrative of justice in this country.

Julian Huppert: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on this issue over many years; it is a great tribute to him that he took it seriously. Does he agree that a fundamental principle underlies this point, which is that no matter what somebody has been accused of, however heinous it might be, they are still entitled to due process and due legal protections? That is an essential principle from which we should not vary, whether a person be accused of terrorist activities, sex crimes or anything else. Due process is important, because errors are made.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. However heinous the crime, however vile the accusation against an individual, unless they are treated as innocent until proven guilty, we undermine everything we believe in as a democratic society.
	The big change that came after the release of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four—and Judith Ward for that matter—was the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which immediately started looking at 600 miscarriage of justice cases that had not received the sort of publicity that we had managed to engender in the three cases I just mentioned.

Hywel Williams: I wish to refer to one of those cases. The Cardiff Three, who were accused of a non-terrorism crime, suffered the same injustice and vilification, but eventually got some sort of justice.

Jeremy Corbyn: Absolutely. I recall that campaign very well. Although I was not centrally involved in it, I certainly supported it.
	The question really goes back to the Minister. I intervened on him during his opening remarks to give him a chance—a double chance; not double jeopardy, but a double chance—to provide us with good reasons why he is introducing a provision that we, along with Liberty and many others, believe will fundamentally undermine much of what has been achieved through the Criminal Cases Review Commission and by the ability to overturn miscarriages of justice.
	Justice can go wrong. The media can get it wrong. There can be a campaign of vilification that gets it wrong. We should not be too holier than thou in this country as we already have a considerable number of people held indefinitely under immigration law, and we have anti-terror laws that I believe are highly questionable in many ways when it comes to justice. I hope that the Minister will explain in his reply exactly how a serious campaign on a miscarriage of justice case would be dealt with in the future and how many more people could indeed be locked up for a long period for offences that they did not commit and could not have committed.
	If amendment 95 is not accepted—I support the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington that the whole of clause 143 be deleted—I hope that the House of Lords will look at the provisions in forensic detail. Many of those who did such incredible work, including Baroness Helena Kennedy, in representing these causes and cases over many years, sit in the other place and I hope they will ensure that this legislation is fundamentally changed so that we recognise that mistakes can happen, that terrible injustices can take place and that unless we provide the opportunity and ability to remedy them, they will happen again and again and again. That is very dangerous in any democratic society.

Simon Hughes: I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, to the Minister and to colleagues because I had to slip out briefly at the beginning of this debate, albeit for what I hope are appropriate reasons. I had to meet a press deadline to pay tribute to one of our party members—not a parliamentarian, but a man called Stan Hardy who had been a great campaigner on these sorts of issues. He died last Thursday at the ripe old age of 93. Not just Liberal Democrats or liberals but Labour and Conservative colleagues in London and beyond recognised Stan as a doughty campaigner for civil liberties as well as for the rights of the under-privileged.
	It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on these sorts of issues, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) in paying tribute to his doughty campaigning throughout all the time he and I have been together in the place—now more than 30 years in both our cases. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment, supported by his hon. Friends, is designed to deal with a wrong in this Bill that I hope we can remedy.
	There is a difference between amendment 95, tabled by the hon. Member for Islington North, and amendment 184, tabled by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) and me. We argue for our amendment in our own right, but also on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Amendment 95 would amend clause 143, taking out from line 26 the words
	“the person was innocent of the offence”
	and inserting the words
	“no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered.”
	The Joint Committee’s collective view was that we would do better to remove clause 143 as a whole—exactly the issue for which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) argued. I have been here long enough to remember and to have supported numerous campaigns to deal with miscarriages of justice, many of them very unpopular for the reasons we have all identified. Having looked at the issue again, I honestly believe that
	the removal of the clause would be the better way to deal with the problem. There are technical problems with amendment 95, so I strongly commend to the Minister the amendment to remove clause 143.
	Finally, I shall not press the Joint Committee’s amendment to a vote, but we feel strongly about this issue as a Committee. I am sure the Minister knows that we will listen respectfully to what he says, but I hope he can be helpful and confirm that the principle of the Government’s proposal—that the provision should apply
	“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that the person was innocent”—
	will be changed because that is not the test that should be applied to deal with miscarriages of justice.

Mark Durkan: I, too, rise to speak to amendment 95, to which my name is attached, along with that of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn).
	As the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes)and others have said, the history of serious cases of miscarriages of justice should bear very heavily indeed on all Members. I include in that the cases that were fought, promoted and championed against very difficult headwinds here in Parliament by Members of all parties. I recall Conservative Members like the late John Biggs-Davison and others championing those cases alongside Labour and Liberal MPs—but little thanks did they get for it from sections of the media and others.
	My own predecessors and party colleagues in Parliament fought on those issues at that time. I remember working in John Hume’s office writing all sorts of letters to the Home Office. Of course, we were told that new facts and new evidence did not qualify as new facts and new evidence. Perhaps that issue still applies to clause 143. Even if amendment 95 were accepted, the question of what counts as a
	“new or newly discovered fact”
	still arises, although I hope that the wording of the amendment, which would provide that
	“no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered”,
	would help. There were historical arguments about whether new evidence was indeed a new fact or a material consideration, and I would not want to legislate to produce more circular arguments or obfuscations like that for the future.
	Clause 143 is pernicious. It seeks completely to reload the basic, long-standing presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It basically provides qualification of the notion of a miscarriage of justice, suggesting that when someone has suffered what most people would call a miscarriage of justice and when their conviction has, on subsequent judicial appraisal of relevant evidence, been overturned, they should still not be able to proclaim their innocence. There is an insinuation that if they were previously convicted, they are innocent and entitled to compensation as innocent only where they can prove that they are innocent “beyond reasonable doubt”.
	For the people affected, many of their convictions will have taken place many years previously and they will be in no position to marshal all the evidence that could necessarily prove their innocence beyond what someone would call a reasonable doubt. Nobody has to
	meet that criterion at their proper and due initial trial, so why should anybody have to do that to receive compensation after a conviction has been overturned? Compensation is not the only issue here because it is not the monetary value that motivates the fundamental objections to this proposal.
	Before I became a Member in 2005, I worked on the cases of the Guildford Four and the Maguire Seven when they still needed and wanted a full and proper proclamation of their innocence, not least because many sections of the media and others were retelling the slur that these people had somehow secured just a technical acquittal. Their conviction was quashed, but the insinuation remained that they were not really innocent. That problem arose from issues surrounding compensation and other factors.
	I recall being asked by Gerry Conlon, a friend of mine and one of the Guildford Four, if I could get a direct and clear statement of apology and a proclamation of the innocence not just of himself but of his late father, Giuseppe Conlon. I was also asked the same by Sarah Conlon, Gerry’s mother and Giuseppe’s widow. It was plain that Gerry Conlon wanted that clear proclamation of their innocence for his mother, that his mother wanted it for Gerry, and, of course, that they both wanted it for Giuseppe.
	It is hugely important for people to be able to engage in the proper legal process in order to have their innocence properly affirmed. They should not have to engage in all sorts of ulterior processes to secure, for instance, declarations in the House of Commons or in the precincts of Parliament, which is what happened at the time to which I have referred. We must recognise that miscarriages of justice have had a fundamental impact not just on the people whose lives have been marred and blighted by years of jail and the ignominy that they and their families have suffered, but on the wider community—and not just in the context of British-Irish relations and all those historic difficulties.
	It is mean-minded of the Government to use the Bill to try to qualify the definition of whether people have been victims of miscarriages of justice, and to impose an undue burden on them to prove their innocence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Those words were chosen very deliberately. How can any of us prove our innocence of anything beyond reasonable doubt? Many of us might be accused of saying things, insinuating things, meaning things, or doing things relating to our expenses or all sorts of other things, but it would be enormously difficult for us then to prove beyond reasonable doubt that we had not done those things, particularly if we had been subject to a lot of media reportage, profiling and distorted coverage. It is beyond me to imagine why the Government chose to use such wording.
	In amendment 95, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North and I seek to modify the damage done by clause 143, proposing that the words
	“the person was innocent of the offence”
	after the words
	“if and only if the new or newly discovered fact shows beyond reasonable doubt that”
	should be replaced by the words
	“no reasonable court properly directed as to the law, could convict on the evidence now to be considered”.
	I think that that is an important and measured qualification.
	I also agree with what was said by the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on behalf of the Joint Committee. In many respects, clause 143 as a whole is the problem. I certainly am not minded to become involved in a contest relating to whether the House should divide on whether to keep the whole clause or on whether to amend it in the way suggested by amendment 95. On the basis of what I have heard from Liberal Democrat Members, as well as the important statements that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, I will say that—although my party has no Members in the House of Lords, and will have none until it has become a reformed and democratic Chamber—if there are other worthy heads there that are able to concentrate on this clause in its fullest and important sense, I shall give them every encouragement to do so.
	We cannot treat this issue lightly. The Government may say, “It is all about the compensation culture: it is simply about cutting costs.” They may say that they do not want compensation to be automatically provided in cases with which people might not be comfortable because they might find the recipient unattractive, and because it might relate to a crime about which there was a great deal of deep and understandable public feeling. However, none of those considerations should allow us to indulge a clause that would fundamentally tilt the presumption of innocence—that would tilt the balance away from someone’s guilt having to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. People who have been convicted and deemed guilty may be able to challenge that decision subsequently, but, even if they are released, they may in a sense be unable to escape from the original conviction.
	Inherent in the Government’s proposal is the notion that the fact that someone is not guilty does not necessarily mean that that person is innocent, which is a very dangerous wedge to start inserting in public assumptions and perceptions. However, it is what we as legislators are being asked to do, and the hon. Member for Islington North and I tabled amendment 95 so that we could register our view properly today. We hope that it will be registered further, in terms such as those that we have already heard from the Opposition Front Bench and, indeed, from some on the Government Benches.
	I hope that the Minister is sensitive to some of the issues that have been raised—not just in relation to cases that have already happened, but in relation to those that may happen in the future—and to the deep concern that is felt about the possibility that the “tilting” is part of some other ulterior agenda. This is certainly not something that we can allow to pass lightly, and I shall listen very carefully to what the Minister says.

Hywel Williams: I will support amendment 184, or, failing that, amendment 95.
	Clause 143 in its present form marks a significant and hugely detrimental shift in the law which would make it far more difficult for individuals to gain compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Non-governmental organisations concerned with human rights, including the Committee on the Administration of Justice, as well as highly respected organisations such as Justice and Liberty, have expressed major anxieties about the clause. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) explained very eloquently, an individual who applies for compensation for a miscarriage of justice must currently demonstrate that a court could not have established
	beyond reasonable doubt that he or she was guilty of the offence. Clause 143, however, shifts the burden of proof to the individual, and compels that individual to prove that he or she is innocent of the offence. A miscarriage of justice would henceforth be proved to have taken place only if newly discovered facts showed beyond reasonable doubt that that person was innocent.
	As Justice has pointed out, since 2006 section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 has provided the only avenue for individuals to obtain financial redress after miscarriages of justice have occurred. It is chilling to think that, had the proposed change in the law been in place at the time, none of the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven or the Cardiff Three—I have some interest in that case, and indeed referred to it earlier—would have satisfied the innocence test.
	Those infamous cases, of course, paved the way for the establishment of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. The individuals involved won compensation because it was proved that the evidence that had been brought against them was flawed, and that a jury could not have found them guilty had the case been retried. As was made clear by the hon. Member for Foyle, the justice system of England and Wales is unlike the Scottish system in that a case cannot be found to be “not proven”, although there have been arguments about that position.
	In the notorious cases that I have just listed, the rule of thumb for the awarding of compensation was always that the individuals would receive the amount that they would have earned had they been working during the time when they were wrongfully imprisoned. The purpose of that was to ensure that they would not be impoverished when they were released. It would be wicked indeed to deny individuals that compensation when the justice system has gone wrong.
	Under the current law, it is already exceptionally difficult to persuade the criminal Court of Appeal to review new evidence. For cases to qualify, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is required to apply section 13(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995, which provides that individuals must satisfy a “real possibility test”. Arguably, both the Criminal Cases Review Court and the Court of Appeal adopt an excessively strict interpretation of this test. They restrict reviews to new evidence that was not available at the time of the trial or appeal, which means in practice that evidence that was available at the time of the trial or appeal cannot be considered, even in cases in which it was suppressed by the police. Given how difficult it is to get cases referred to the Court of Appeal under both the “real possibility test” and the need for fresh evidence, it is harsh indeed that the Government are attempting further to restrict people’s ability to gain compensation. Innocence is far too high a test and would be virtually impossible to prove after many years, which is when such cases are usually heard.
	If this matter is not pressed to a successful Division this afternoon, I sincerely hope that Members in the other place will apply the most stringent attention to the clause. My noble Friend Lord Wigley will certainly do so.

Emily Thornberry: I am grateful to be called, Mr Speaker. Thank you for letting me speak in the debate. I appreciate that my role as a shadow law Minister means that it is an indulgence to allow me to speak. I appreciate it.
	I have been in the House for eight years and I thought that I was unshockable, but the way in which the Government are seeking to amend section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 to redefine a miscarriage of justice is truly shocking. They wish to change it so that, if and only if newly discovered facts show beyond reasonable doubt that the person is innocent, there has been a miscarriage of justice. Nothing less than that will do. Only in those circumstances can someone be given compensation.
	I am sure that the Minister will have noted, as anyone else watching the debate will have done, that no one has yet spoken in favour of clause 143, not even the Minister himself yet. If the matter is not dealt with this afternoon, I hope that there will be the opportunity to deal with it in another place. We need to marshal our forces, because the essence of our liberal society is threatened.
	The Government’s arguments for introducing an innocence test—there are many arguments; I want to concentrate on the Government’s justification—are, first, that it is needed for the sake of clarity; and, secondly, that it will save money. Neither of those arguments is remotely convincing. Let me turn to the first, about clarity.
	The law at the moment is perfectly clear. Three recent authoritative judgments have rejected the innocence test as an affront to the presumption of innocence. The Supreme Court did so in the case of Adams in 2011, in which Lady Hale said:
	“a person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt...He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now.”
	That was reiterated in the High Court in the case of Ali earlier this year. There was an attempt to widen the definition, but that attempt was well and truly quashed by the High Court. This summer, moreover, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case of Allen v. the UK, made it perfectly clear that any legislation that calls into question the innocence of an acquitted person would be a breach of article 6(2) of the European convention on human rights on the presumption of innocence.
	Therefore, the law is clear. That law has been reiterated by our own Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has been able to assert that
	“it is now clear beyond doubt”
	that the proposed new test in clause 143 is incompatible with the right to be presumed innocent in article 6(2). Therefore, rather than clarifying the law, it seems that the Government are having a pitched battle with the settled, established law.
	The second argument is about saving money. The Bill’s own impact assessment reveals the expected savings to be negligible. According to that MOJ assessment—the Minister looks puzzled; it is on page 4—the effect of the clause will be to reduce by two per annum the number of judicial reviews of Secretary of State decisions, which it estimates will save around £100,000 per annum. Therefore, for the sake of saving £100,000 per annum, we will be trading in the centuries-old principle of the presumption of innocence. The courts have rejected an innocence test not out of some quibbling legalistic technicality. They have rejected it because it is a cornerstone of a fair
	justice system. We have a fair justice system and a free society where it is for the state to prove guilt, not for the individual to prove innocence.
	The reason for that is obvious. Proving a negative is very difficult and the burden of proof it would place on the individual is extremely onerous. It is for the state with all its resources to make the case of a person’s guilt. The presumption of innocence applies before an acquittal. As Lord Phillips said in the Adams case, any test that requires innocence
	“will deprive some defendants who are in fact innocent and who succeed in having their convictions quashed on the grounds of fresh evidence from obtaining compensation. It will exclude from entitlement to compensation those who no longer seem likely to be guilty, but whose innocence is not established beyond reasonable doubt. This is a heavy price to pay for ensuring that no guilty person is ever the recipient of compensation”.
	It is unfair and unreasonable to demand that, after years of being wrongfully imprisoned, an acquitted person should produce some evidential rabbit out of a hat that proves beyond doubt their innocence. They should be able to seek redress for the years of their lives that have been wasted and the years in which they have been the victim of abuse of state power. It is wrong for them to be expected to come out of prison after 16 years, turn into some sort of Inspector Clouseau and find some nugget that will prove beyond doubt that they are innocent. In most cases, that will be a technical impossibility, given the amount of time that will have elapsed since their imprisonment. That means that it will often be the most deserving and the longest suffering who are denied compensation. The point has already been made that the Birmingham Six would not have been able to get justice and compensation under the test that the Government are proposing.
	This proposed change is wrong and we need to ensure, either in this place or in the other place, that it does not pass into law. There seems to be general agreement on both sides of the House among those who are against the change that another place may be the best place to deal with it. We wish Members in another place the best of luck.

Damian Green: This has been a serious debate, appropriately, because these are serious issues. Having listened carefully to the views of Members on both sides of the House, I believe that there are some genuine misunderstandings about what is proposed and what its effect will be. I will seek to deal with those as briefly as I can. It is a complex issue.
	As we have heard, amendment 95 seeks to maintain the current definition of a “miscarriage of justice” derived from case law, which is therefore subject to ongoing litigation. Amendment 184 goes further and would prevent us from creating a statutory definition of a “miscarriage of justice” at all, leaving the definition subject to the shifting view of the courts. Over the years, the courts have provided complicated definitions of a miscarriage of justice, which are often confusing to a lay person and are by definition subject to change over time. In this instance, it is unlikely that an applicant for compensation would know what
	“properly directed as to the law”
	means in a particular case. That would have disadvantages for applicants, who will find it difficult to know whether they have a valid claim, or to understand the Secretary of State’s decision on their case.

Emily Thornberry: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, although there has been a challenge in respect of the case of Adams in the Supreme Court, the position has not moved and the law on the definition of miscarriage of justice has been settled since 2011?

Damian Green: I will come to the Adams case in a moment, if the hon. Lady will be patient.
	Many disappointed applicants seek judicial review of the Secretary of State’s decision, because they do not fully understand its basis or because the case law is unclear. In practice, very few such claims succeed, and they place a significant burden on the applicant involved and on the taxpayers who have to fund them. Therefore, the purpose of clause 143 is to restore the law to the pre-2011 position and to make the definition of a miscarriage of justice more consistent, clearer and easier for the public and potential applicants to understand. That is fairer than using an obscure and confusing definition, or continuing to work, as we have to now, with a definition that is subject to unpredictable change. We are firmly of the view that the provision is compatible with our international obligations and the convention rights. I am conscious that we are in discussions with the Joint Committee about that and that we hold different views on the matter.

Simon Hughes: Although this issue is being dealt with very carefully, there is clearly a difference of view, and the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) made the case for the legal justification. Rather than just have a battle at the other end of the building and a lottery of an outcome, will my right hon. Friend undertake to facilitate a meeting of all those interested in both Houses with members of the relevant Committees so that we can hear evidence and try to do the job properly, and see whether the Government have adopted the right position or we need to do something else? I would far rather we got it right and were really clear and all signed up than we had a maverick outcome that satisfied very few or nobody.

Damian Green: I am happy to continue to engage in the discussions that the Departments have been having with the Joint Committee or anyone else, but I regret to say that I am not sure that having a meeting at which a definitive view could be arrived at would be possible, as that would be subcontracting the right of Parliament to be that Chamber—that is the purpose of this House and the other place, and I do not think it is constitutionally right to try to subcontract that to a meeting of experts.
	The nub of Members’ complaints about clause 143 is that it is in some way incompatible with the presumption of innocence—I do not think I am traducing hon. Members in saying that—and that is the issue we need to address. Of course the Government recognise the fundamental constitutional importance of the presumption of innocence and we would not introduce legislation
	that cuts across that. We consider that article 14.6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which section 133 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 gives effect, provides only for compensation to be paid to those persons whose convictions have been overturned because a new fact shows that they did not commit the offence. In the Government’s view, that is the proper definition of a miscarriage of justice. Compensation should not be payable where the basis for the conviction being overturned does not demonstrate the applicant’s innocence.
	The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) brought up the European Court of Human Rights. We are aware of its decision on this issue and we have written in some detail to the Joint Committee on Human Rights about it. However, we continue to consider that this provision would not interfere with a person’s fundamental right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. We take firm support for this view from the Supreme Court in the Adams case, which held unanimously that the presumption of innocence is not infringed by the current arrangements for compensating a miscarriage of justice. In our view, the proposed change does not alter that analysis. As the European Court acknowledged, more than an acquittal is required to establish that there has been a miscarriage of justice. Through clause 143, we are determining where that line should be drawn.
	Under clause 143, there is no requirement for a person applying for compensation for a miscarriage of justice to “prove” their innocence. What is determinative is the fact on which the conviction was overturned. So, for example, if a person’s conviction is overturned because DNA evidence comes to light showing they could not have committed the offence, it is only right that they should be compensated. Following the coming into force of clause 143, they will, as now, be eligible for compensation.
	The proposed new test for determining eligibility for compensation does not require the applicant to demonstrate his or her innocence; it focuses on the new fact. When the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights recently ruled in the case of Allen that the presumption of innocence is engaged when deciding whether to pay compensation for a miscarriage of justice, the Court made it clear that states were entitled to conclude that more than an acquittal was required. This clause will enable us to say, for the first time in statute, what beyond an acquittal is necessary for there to have been a miscarriage of justice. It introduces for the first time some certainty in the process.
	I should say in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that the clause will have no impact at all on the very valuable work being done every day by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, and nor will it change the basis on which a conviction is overturned.

Emily Thornberry: I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that the wording of amendment 95 reiterates the wording in the settled case law I have been telling him about.

Damian Green: Yes, indeed, and I have addressed directly the cases the hon. Lady raised.
	We are returning the law to where it was in 2008 under the previous Government, where following the decision of the House of Lords in Mullen, compensation was held to be payable only where a person could be shown not to have committed, or to have been demonstrably innocent of, the offence for which he was convicted.
	As has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Adams, it is difficult to glean exactly what the framers of the ICCPR intended on this point from the papers now available, and nor is there international consensus on what the ICCPR requires in this regard. Signatories to the ICCPR have some latitude in determining the requirements of article 14.6. For example. New Zealand and Canada restrict the payment of compensation for a miscarriage of justice to cases where the applicant was innocent. Further, while the Supreme Court in Adams ultimately held that eligibility for compensation was not limited to cases of innocence, four members of the Supreme Court, including the current Lord Chief Justice, considered that compensation should be payable only in cases of innocence. We are therefore confident that what we are doing achieves the aim of creating a more readily comprehensible test which meets the Government’s policy objectives, while also complying with our international obligations.
	We recognise the fundamental constitutional importance of the presumption of innocence, and there may simply be a disagreement in this Chamber as to whether we are breaching it, but I can assure the House that there is no intention of doing so, and I am firmly of the belief that clause 143 does not do that. All it does is require compensation to be paid to those persons whose convictions have been overturned because a new fact shows that they did not in fact commit the offence. This, in the Government’s view, is the proper definition to be given to a miscarriage of justice
	I hope I have cleared up what I think are genuine misunderstandings about the effect of clause 143, and I urge the Members concerned to withdraw their amendments.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New Clause 10 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Power of community support officer to issue fixed penalty notice for cycle light offence

‘(1) Part 1 of Schedule 4 to the Police Reform Act 2002 (powers of community support officers) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 1 (power to issue fixed penalty notices)—
	(a) for “in respect of an offence” there is substituted “in respect of—an offence”;
	(i) an offence”;
	(b) at the end there is inserted “, or an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.
	(i) an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.
	(3) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11A (power to stop cycles)—
	(a) for “has committed an offence” there is substituted “has committed—
	(a) an offence”;
	(b) at the end there is inserted “, or
	(b) an offence, under section 42 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, of contravening or failing to comply with a construction or use requirement about lighting equipment or reflectors for cycles;”.’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 16—Control of new psychoactive substances—
	‘(1) Any person supplying, or offering to supply, a synthetic psychoactive substance including but not restricted to—
	(a) a powder;
	(b) a pill;
	(c) a liquid; or
	(d) a herbal substance with the appearance of cannabis,
	which is likely to be consumed by a person for the purpose of causing intoxication will be subject to a Synthetic Psychoactive Product Order prohibiting its supply.
	(2) Any subsequent breach of that Order will be an offence.
	(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.
	(4) This section does not apply to alcohol, tobacco, or any drug currently scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 or the Medicines Act 1968.’.
	New clause 26—Assault on workers in public facing roles—
	‘(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
	(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
	(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.
	(2) No offence is committed—
	(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
	(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
	(3) In this section—
	“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
	(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and(b) (i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or (ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally.
	“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
	(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.
	New clause 27—Long-term police authorisation requiring independent approval—
	‘( ) The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 is amended as follows—
	(a) after section 32A (Authorisations requiring judicial approval) insert—
	“32AA Long-term police authorisations requiring independent approval
	(1) This section applies where a relevant person has granted a long-term authorisation under section 29.
	(2) The authorisation is not to take effect until such time (if any) as the relevant independent body has made an order approving the grant of the authorisation.
	(3) The relevant independent body may give approval under this section to the granting of an authorisation under section 29 if, and only if, the relevant independent body is satisfied that—
	(a) at the time of the grant—
	(i) there were reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and
	(ii) the relevant conditions were satisfied in relation to that authorisation, and
	(b) at the time when the relevant independent body is considering the matter, there remain reasonable grounds for believing that the requirements of section 29(2), and any requirements imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(b) are satisfied in relation to that authorisation.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the relevant conditions in relation to a grant by an individual holding an office, rank or position in a relevant law enforcement agency, that—
	(a) the individual was a designated person for the purposes of section 29,
	(b) the grant of an authorisation was not in breach of any prohibition imposed by virtue of section 29(7)(a) or any restriction imposed by virtue of section 30(3), and
	(c) any other conditions that may be provided for by the Secretary of State were satisfied.
	(5) In this section—
	“relevant law enforcement authority” means—
	(a) a police force in the United Kingdom, and(b) the National Crime Agency.
	“relevant judicial authority” means—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, the High Court of Justice in England and Wales,(b) in relation to Scotland, the Court of Session, and(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland.
	“relevant person” means—
	(a) an individual holding an office, rank or position in a police force in the United Kingdom, and(b) an individual holding an office, rank or position in the National Crime Agency.
	(6) In this section—
	“relevant independent body” must be set out by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this Clause is enacted.
	“long-term” must be set out by the Home Secretary in a motion passed by both Houses of Parliament before this Clause is enacted.”.’.
	New clause 31—Annual review of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act—
	‘(1) The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation shall monitor and publish a report to Parliament providing an analysis of the application of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000.
	(2) The report shall include an assessment of those persons stopped, questioned or detained who have protected characteristics within the meaning of section 4 of the Equality Act 2010 (The protected characteristics).
	(3) A Minister of the Crown, must not later than 3 months after the report has been laid before Parliament, make a motion in the House of Commons in relation to the report.’.
	New clause 32—Sunset provision for Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000—
	‘(1) Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 shall be repealed, five years after the commencement of this Act, unless continued in force by an order under subsection (2).
	(2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide—
	(a) that those provisions which are in force shall continue in force for a period not exceeding five years from the coming into operation of the order; or
	(b) that those provisions which are for the time being in force shall cease to be in force.
	(3) No order shall be made under subsection (2) unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.’.
	New clause 34—Public order offences committed against constables in private dwellings—
	‘(1) In section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	“(4) Subsection 2 and subsection 3(a) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.
	(2) In section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	“(4) Subsection 2 and subsection 3(b) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.
	(3) In section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986, after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	“(3) Subsection 2 and subsection (4) do not apply where the person who is harassed, alarmed or distressed is a constable who is present in the dwelling in the execution of his duty.”.’.
	Government amendments 51 to 55
	Amendment 148,page98,line17, in clause 127, leave out lines 17 and 18 and insert
	‘Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is repealed.’.
	Amendment 150,page98,line18, at end add—
	‘(2) The Secretary of State shall by order make any amendments to Schedule 7 or 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 recommended by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to limit the scope of its application.’.
	Amendment 136,page116,line4, in clause 144, leave out subsection (2).
	Government amendments 61, 65, 67, 69, 70, 71, 73, 78, 79 to 81.
	Amendment 149,page146,line26, leave out schedule 7.
	Amendment 151,page147,line15, in schedule 7, at end insert—
	‘Power to stop, question and detain
	1A (1) Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) Paragraph 2(4) is repealed.
	(3) After paragraph 4 there is inserted—
	4A An examining officer must ensure that all questioning, beginning at the commencement of the examination, is recorded and retained for as long as is deemed necessary, which must be no less than one year, so that it may be used in any complaints process that may follow.’.
	Amendment 179,page147,line16, at end insert—
	‘Limits on duty to give information and documents
	1A In paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before “A person who is questioned” there is inserted “Subject to paragraph 9A below”.’.
	Amendment 178,page147,line25, at end insert—
	‘(2A) A person questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 may not be detained under paragraph 6 unless the examining officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that he is a person falling within section 40(1)(b).’.
	Amendment 180,page147,line33, before paragraph 3 insert—
	2A In paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before ‘An examining officer’ there is inserted ‘Subject to paragraph 9A below.’.
	Amendment 181,page148,line20, at end insert—
	3A In paragraph 9(1) of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, before “An examining officer” there is inserted “Subject to paragraph 9A below.”.3B In Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, after paragraph 9 there is inserted—
	“Data stored on personal electronic devices
	9A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule—
	(a) the information or documents which a person can be required to give the examining officer under paragraph 5,
	(b) the things which may be searched under paragraph 8, and
	(c) the property which may be examined under paragraph 9,
	do not include data stored on personal electronic devices unless the person is detained under paragraph 6.
	(2) “Personal electronic device” includes a mobile phone, a personal computer and any other portable electronic device on which personal information is stored.”.’.
	Amendment 156,page148,line38, at end insert—
	‘(4) The copy, and information derived from it, may be used for no other purposes than those specified in subparagraph (3).’.
	Amendment 182,page148,line38, at end insert—
	‘Audio and video-recording of interviews
	4A In paragraph 3(6) of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000, the words “if the interview takes place in a police station” are omitted.’.
	Amendment 157,page148,line38, at end insert—
	‘Right to silence
	4A In Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, after paragraph 18 there is inserted—18A Right to silenceNothing in this Schedule—
	(a) imposes a duty on a person to respond to questioning; or
	(b) allows inferences to be drawn from their silence.”.’.
	Amendment 152,page148,line42, at end insert—
	‘(2A) In paragraph 6(1) the words “Subject to paragraph 8” are omitted.’.
	Amendment 153,page148,line43, after ‘7(1)’, insert—
	(a) the words “Subject to paragraphs 8 and 9” are omitted;
	(b) ’.
	Amendment 154,page148,line43, at end insert—
	‘(3A) Paragraph 8 is omitted.’.
	Amendment 155,page149,line1, at end insert—
	‘(4A) Paragraph 9 is omitted.’.
	Amendment 183,page150,line2, after ‘officer’ leave out
	‘at such intervals as may be specified in, and otherwise in accordance with, the code of practice’
	and insert—
	‘(2A) The first review shall be carried out as soon as is reasonably practicable after the time of the person’s detention and not more than one hour from that time.
	(2B) Subsequent reviews shall be carried out at intervals of not more than 2 hours.’.
	Government amendments 84 to 86 and 91.

Damian Green: I propose to run through the Government amendments in this group briskly, so that other Members can speak to their amendments. Given the linkage to the Government amendments on low-value shop theft, I also intend to touch on amendment 136 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). With the leave of the House, I propose to respond to the other non-Government amendments in this group when winding up.
	New clause 11 follows up a debate in Committee initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), who raised some important points about the powers of police community support officers. In particular, he proposed that two new powers should be conferred on PCSOs: first, that they should be able to issue a fixed penalty notice for riding a bicycle without lights; and, secondly, that they should be able to search someone for controlled drugs.
	I gave a commitment to consider my hon. Friend’s proposals over the summer, in the context of the specific role that PCSOs play in our communities. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is an inconsistency in PCSOs’ powers around cycling. They can issue a penalty notice for riding on a footway, but not for riding without lights. Extending their powers in respect of cycling, as provided for in new clause 11, would end this anomaly and complement their important engagement role. Being on foot patrol, they are well-placed within their communities to increase awareness and educate people about the importance of cycle safety. Backing this up with the power to issue a penalty notice could enhance the impact they have in their neighbourhoods.
	The power to search for controlled dugs is more complicated. We do need to keep a clear distinction between the role of a PCSO and that of a constable. We need to be mindful of the risk that new powers could increase the element of confrontation in the role of PCSOs and detract from their presence on the streets. It is vital that we get this right and, accordingly, we are still considering whether such an expansion of powers is appropriate. I assure my hon. Friend that I will let him and the House know the outcome of that consideration as quickly as possible.
	Amendments 51 to 55, 65, 70, 71, 77 and 84 to 86 simply make various consequential amendments to the provisions in the Bill relating to the creation of the police remuneration review body, which will operate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, to take account of the fact that the Scottish Government have now introduced their own legislation to establish the police negotiating board for Scotland. The amendments ensure
	that various statutory references to the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom which are being amended by the Bill, will now apply to the PNB for Scotland.
	Amendments 79 to 81 relate to the new powers to seize invalid travel documents. They do not change the powers, but simply improve the drafting to ensure that there is absolute clarity. The amendments clarify that, although a constable, immigration officer or a designated customs official may authorise a person to carry out a search for travel documents on their behalf at a port, this power may only be exercised away from a port by a constable. The amendment restates that reasonable force may be used if necessary when exercising the new search and seizure powers.
	On low-value shop theft, clause 144 is intended to improve the management through the courts of the high volume of shop thefts involving goods to the value of £200 or less by enabling them to benefit from procedures applying to summary only cases. In particular, offenders will be able to plead guilty by post and, in turn, the police will be able to prosecute suitable cases directly as “specified proceedings”, without the need to involve the Crown Prosecution Service. That will simplify procedures and enable swifter justice in such cases. Although clause 144 makes low-value shop theft “summary only”, it preserves the defendant’s right to be tried at the Crown Court, through subsection (2) of new section 22A of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. Amendment 136, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, would remove that subsection. The Government have been clear that they will defend the right to trial by jury; it is an historic freedom that is rightly protected by the coalition’s programme for government. Although the statistics suggest that the right is not often exercised in cases of shop theft—last year, only 700 out of 77,000 cases went to the Crown Court—we see no reason to depart from that general principle. In this instance, I urge my hon. Friend to reconsider his amendment.
	Government amendments 61, 69 and 73 are consequential on those changes. Amendment 61 will ensure that a range of powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 available to the police and others to deal with indictable offences, which currently includes all theft from shops, will remain available to deal with the theft of goods of a value of £200 or less. That means that magistrates will still be able to issue search warrants, the police will be able to enter premises to search for evidence or arrest suspects, and store detectives will still be able to arrest suspects. I hope that that provides some reassurance to some retailers that I know have been anxious about this. The amendment also ensures that the equivalent PACE provisions applying to service personnel are similarly amended to preserve relevant powers of investigation. This will ensure that cases of shop theft can continue to be investigated and pursued appropriately and rigorously by the police, while providing that where individuals are to be prosecuted in court, that can be done more efficiently and effectively.

Jack Dromey: I wish to speak to new clauses 27, 26 and 16 and, given the time available, I will do so as quickly as possible.
	Today, in another place, the remarkable Doreen Lawrence will be ennobled. Twenty years ago her son was cruelly murdered. The son of Neville, a carpenter, and Doreen, a special needs teacher, Stephen was but 18 years old,
	excelling at school and at sport, and with a whole life ahead of him, when he was cruelly murdered by racists. To add insult to injury—I say this with regret—there was clear evidence of racism in the way in which the police inquiry was conducted. As if that were not bad enough, serious allegations have now been made that the police then spied on the Lawrence family with a view to discrediting them. That has prompted the ongoing Operation Herne.
	What happened to the Lawrence family is not the only situation that gives rise to concern. I am thinking, for example, of the long-running infiltration of peaceful protesters in the environmental movement by Mark Kennedy; serious questions have been asked about the accountability of the undercover police operation that was undertaken. Let me make myself clear: undercover policing is vital in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism, and is a key part of the police’s ability to keep communities safe. I pay tribute to the work done by brave police officers in dangerous and often difficult circumstances. However, undercover operations are also incredibly sensitive and have a substantial impact on the lives of members of the public. As such, they require the highest ethical and operational standards. That is why we have tabled new clause 27 to ensure that all long-term undercover operations would be signed off by a relevant independent body, to ensure that this important tool is used proportionately, sensitively and only when necessary, and with clear and improved accountability arrangements. That type of sign-off for police operations has precedent. If the police or security services want to break in and bug a room or intercept a phone call, they have to have a justification in the interests of national security—

David Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jack Dromey: Having taken several interventions yesterday, I say with great regret that, because of the time and because other issues are down for debate, I will not take interventions. That will not be a precedent for the future.
	On other kinds of police operation a sign-off is necessary, but the oversight of the existing arrangements in this regard is inadequate. That cannot be right, so our new clause would help to ensure that unacceptable operations such as the alleged smear campaign against the Lawrence family cannot take place and that each operation undertaken is accountable, justifiable and in the wider public interest.
	Let me now deal with new clause 26. Last year alone, 4% of retail staff were attacked at work and 34% were threatened with violence. Our new clause seeks to address a discrepancy in sentencing policy regarding people who suffer serious assaults during the course of their daily employment. At present, sentencing guidelines are explicit that an aggravating factor in determining a sentence for common assault on a public-facing worker should be whether the offence was committed against an individual working in the public sector or providing a service to the public. Whereas assaulting a police constable while they are discharging their duty is a separate offence that carries an additional sentence, an attack on those in public sector employment, such as nurses, is an aggravated offence. However, that consideration
	does not apply in respect of the millions of hard-working people in our shops, petrol stations and restaurants. That leaves the judge to decide under which of the three categories of harm and culpability, the 19 aggravating factors and the 11 factors reducing the seriousness, assaulting a staff member falls. That is why there is real concern, particularly but not exclusively in the retail sector, about the level of attacks on employees and the sentencing guidelines—or lack thereof. This is a real problem, brought to the public attention not only by unions such as the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers but by the British Retail Consortium, who have come together to advance the “Freedom from Fear” campaign.
	Although some progress has been made—of that there is no doubt—there remains an unacceptable level of assaults against public-facing workers, with 30,000 attacks on shop staff reported last year. Indeed, the British Retail Consortium estimates that the figure could be as high as 35,000. That does not include those that were not reported. Our proposed new clause simply makes it clear that attacking an individual in the course of their employment should be considered an aggravating factor, whether they work in the public or the private sector.
	It cannot be right that we have an unacceptable level of assaults on staff, some of which are very serious with lasting traumatic effects. That includes a machete raid on a corner shop in which an individual suffered severe lacerations. Only £150 was stolen, but the impact on the individual has been profound and lasting. The evidence from many of the attacks shows that they impact on the mental and physical well-being of the staff who were trying to do their jobs, and that should not be underestimated.
	Of course it is right that we should give particular consideration to police officers and nurses and doctors in hospitals, but our new clause says that if someone is working in a betting shop, an off-licence or a supermarket, or on a bus run by a private company, their job is also important. They serve the public, even if they are not public servants. Does the Minister not agree that they should be afforded the same support and protection in the workplace? We believe that the time has come to send an unmistakable message that all citizens are entitled not just to dignity at work but to security at work.
	We hope that the Minister will respond positively to new clause 27 and that further consideration will be given to the idea in the other place. Our intention on new clause 26, if the Minister does not agree to it, is to press it to a vote.
	New clause 16 is about the control of new psychoactive substances or legal highs. The problem with legal highs is exactly that—they are legal, so people do not see them as dangerous or feel the need to be careful about them or about the regulation around them. One such case involved Maryon Stewart, whose child tragically died and who established the Angelus Foundation. We need to ensure that anyone who uses a legal high knows the effect and that there is proper regulation to ensure that we do not have legal highs that lead to a high number of deaths. There were 29 such deaths in 2011 and 52 in 2012. All the indications suggest that that figure is growing.
	We have proposed the new clause because the number of new psychoactive substances is on the rise. It is estimated that more than 500,000 people, predominantly
	young people, use them and there is profoundly worrying research, including from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, on their impact.
	Our country is almost at the top of the league in the European Union and it is the second biggest market in the world, not just because of the online operators but because of the hundreds of high-street legal high sellers.

Lady Hermon: rose—

Jack Dromey: I will not give way, because of the time that I have available.
	In conclusion, I recognise that some progress has been made and I also recognise the action that has been taken by many trading standards officers. It is absolutely clear, however, that the Government need to go further. Their approach should be flexible but determined, with the necessary powers to take us beyond the existing arrangements, under which only a handful of legal highs are scrutinised every year. This is a marketplace where new products constantly evolve, many of which put those who use them seriously at risk, and in the future we should tackle the problem, banning the use of such products, while, where appropriate, putting out of business those who promote and sell them. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this powerful case, not least because it is being put by many of those whose sons and daughters have died as a consequence of using substances that they never believed for one moment would put their lives at risk.

David Davies: I know that the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) and other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall be as quick as I can.
	I declare an interest as a special constable with the British Transport police, which is why I wanted to speak. My speech can be short, because I agree with most of what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said. I particularly support new clause 26 on public-facing workers. I have little need to add anything. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right in everything he said. In fact, only yesterday, I dealt with a lady, a retail worker, who had been spat at at close range. Obviously, I meet many rail staff who—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—are the victims of daily verbal and physical abuse. We have already heard about nurses, too. I absolutely agree with the new clause and told my Whips that I would support it and vote for it, if it came to a vote.
	I am saddened that I am unable to do so, however, because of new clause 34, about which the hon. Member for Stockport will speak in a minute. I ask her to think very carefully about that, because the clause would reverse some of the good work that would be done by new clause 26. It would take away some of the rights that police constables, who are, after all, public sector, public-facing workers, should have. They should have the same rights as nurses, rail staff, bus drivers and the rest. That is important because police officers are often called to domestic dwelling houses late at night, in cases where drugs and drink can be involved, and they will suffer horrendous verbal abuse and, sometimes, threats of physical abuse. I do not think that police officers
	should have to put up with that any more than social workers or anyone else who goes into a private dwelling house.
	New clause 34 might also have unintended consequences. I am not trying to suggest that anyone is doing anything wrong, but sometimes neighbours might ring to allege that domestic violence is taking place and, when the police officer arrives, they might find one angry male—I am sorry if that is a stereotype, but it is often the case—under the influence of drink and shouting, swearing and so on. If neither of the people in that house is able to make an accusation, the fact that one person is drunk and shouting might be enough to allow a police officer to remove them from the premises by arresting them under the Public Order Act 1986. That is not something that police officers do lightly because they know that any arrest needs to be proportionate and that they will have to take somebody in front of a custody officer, who will not take kindly to arrests made without due cause. I ask the hon. Lady to think very carefully about her new clause.
	If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington wishes to propose his new clause on some other occasion or to table an early-day motion, I will fully support him. I offer him my public support and I will vote for such protection for public sector workers. I would not do so, however, at the expense of police officers, who are also public sector workers like all the others.

Ann Coffey: I want to say a few words on new clause 34. I thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for giving me his views on it, but I think there might have been a misunderstanding.
	The new clause would change the law to make the use of racist or other abusive language in a dwelling house an offence when it was directed at a policeman. I was recently contacted by a serving police officer from my constituency who was present when a colleague from the Greater Manchester police was called a “nigger” in a private house. Under section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, no offence is committed if the “harassment, alarm or distress” takes place inside a dwelling house—that is, somebody’s house or flat. I was surprised by that because, like many people, I was under the impression that racist abuse was an offence wherever it was committed. However, this is not the case. I was shocked to hear that somebody could not be charged with the offence because it took place in a dwelling against a police officer pursuing his duty.
	My amendment would make it an offence to use racist or other abusive language against a police constable who was present in a dwelling in the execution of his duty. The police officer from my constituency described attending a property where two men were aggressively arguing. One was very drunk and called one of the police officers a nigger. The officer described seeing her colleague abused and she told me, “I was quite horrified he had to endure this kind of abuse. I felt very frustrated and helpless that we could not charge the offender with any offence.” I am sure that this is by no means an isolated case and I suspect that other professionals such as social workers and health visitors have also been subject to racist abuse when visiting a person at their home address. It does not seem right to me or, I suspect, to the public that if the police officer had been called a
	nigger in the street, an offence would have been committed, but none was committed because it happened inside a house. I hope the Minister will feel able to consider the amendment that I propose.

Simon Hughes: I shall be very brief as we are short of time, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) also hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	I draw the attention of the House and those watching our proceedings to amendments 179, 178, 180, 181 and 183. I do that not just in my own name, but on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which examined the issue as part of its consideration of the Bill. The Joint Committee is disappointed that the Government have not yet published in full their responses to their consultation on schedule 7. These are controversial issues. Of course, we need anti-terrorist legislation and there is always a balance to be worked out between the civil liberty of the subject and the powers of the authorities.
	We believe, however, that it is very important that legislation distinguishes between the conventional powers to stop, to search, and to question, which can be exercised without reasonable suspicion, and more intrusive powers, such as those of detaining and taking biometric samples, for which the Committee believes the Government have not yet made a persuasive case. The Joint Committee recommends introducing a reasonable suspicion requirement for the more intrusive powers under schedule 7. I know that some argue that schedule 7 should go altogether. That is not the position of the Joint Committee nor, coincidentally, is it the position of my party, which debated this at our conference in Glasgow a few weeks ago and took a view that there should be amendment broadly along the lines set out by the Joint Committee.
	The issue came to prominence, as the House will remember, in August, when Mr David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow when coming into this country on his way back home to Brazil and was detained for nine hours under the anti-terror laws. There were protests by the Brazilian Government and widespread concern about whether the powers were used extensively. We hope we can persuade the Government to take the position of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but we will not seek to divide the House this afternoon, hoping there might be a chance not just for my hon. Friend, but even for the Minister to respond to our concerns.

Julian Huppert: I shall do my best to be brief to allow the Minister time to respond to the debate.
	I welcome Government new clause 11. It is right to extend powers to PCSOs, allowing them to issue fixed penalty notices to cyclists riding without lights. I am a huge champion of cycling. I was delighted when the House passed a motion to get Britain cycling. One of the banes of my life in that context is cyclists who do not obey the rules of the road. Anything that we can do to get people to cycle safely and legally will make it easier for those of us who want to extend facilities for cyclists. There are sensible ways forward. In Cambridge we have been using a “lights instead of tickets” campaign to make sure that people get their lights. I welcome the new clause as a sensible step forward.
	I shall spend most of my time talking about schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, to which I have tabled a series of amendments. There has been particular controversy
	recently, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) mentioned, because of the detention of David Miranda, the partner of
	The
	Guardian
	journalist working on the Edward Snowden leaks. This has led to the Independent Police Complaints Commission taking the Met to the High Court over failure to address complaints and how schedule 7 is used. This is a very broadly written power. It should not be a surprise that it has expanded from its original use in Northern Ireland in the 1970s to become worse and worse as illiberal Governments have made it even heavier.
	It seems to me that it is not right for people who “look like terrorists” to be detained. That is exactly what happens under schedule 7. StopWatch has done a huge amount of work on this. Last year there were 64,000 schedule 7 stops—a huge number. Twenty-seven per cent. of those stopped for under an hour were Asian, much more than their proportion in the community, and 77% of those stopped for more than an hour were from ethnic minority populations. We should not consider that acceptable. StopWatch cites some chilling quotes from one man Glasgow who said that
	“the first thing you ask your friend is . . . not how was the holiday, it’s did you get stopped and what did they ask you?”
	If we are setting up a power that creates huge concern in the Muslim and ethnic minority populations, that will separate people from the bulk of our country and is deeply alarming. The Equality and Human Rights Commission and David Anderson QC have also commented on how damaging that is.
	This is a matter that Liberal Democrats have been concerned about for a long time. It is not just about David Miranda, who has the support of The Guardian. It is also about people who are detained routinely. That is why my party has debated this and why I tabled a range of proposals. There are many concerns about schedule 7. One option would be to get rid of it. There are alternative powers in section 47A. I hope the Minister will comment on what that is. There are other options that we have looked at. I would like to see us committed to David Anderson QC’s proposals to limit the scope of schedule 7. The Government should introduce provisions to that effect in the other place.
	I have also proposed implementing proposals that my party made at our conference. They include getting rid of the principle that authorities can stop people without any suspicion at all, restoring the right to silence for those who are detained, and questioning to be recorded from start to finish. Restoring confidence and the basic principles of the rule of law to that process and making sure that data collected are not used inappropriately should be important in the case of David Miranda. I also propose a statutory principle of annual review and a sunset clause. The Government should look at these proposals and I hope they will take advantage of the process to make sure that that happens. I am glad that that is supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	I would love to deal with the proposals made by the Opposition and their proposals to ban synthetic caffeine, but in the interests of time I will allow the Minister to respond.

Damian Green: I am grateful. I shall be brief.
	On new clause 26, as I said in Committee, I entirely agree with the sentiments behind the clause. The work of a great number of people, whether within the public or the private sector, brings them into face-to-face contact with members of the public, and we know that some of these people suffer violence in the course of their jobs. It is essential that we are satisfied that the law adequately addresses this issue. However, I do not think the new clause is necessary to achieve that. There is already a range of offences that have general application and that criminalise violent behaviour and they would already apply in the context envisaged by the clause. Sentencing guidelines specify that where an assault is committed against someone providing a service to the public, whether in the public or private sector, this is an aggravating factor and so could well result in a higher sentence within the current maximum. So I do not think the clause is necessary, although as I said, I sympathise with the sentiment behind it.
	New clause 27 seeks to introduce a system of independent authorisation for undercover policing operations. I announced to the Home Affairs Committee in June our intention to legislate to enhance oversight of undercover law enforcement officer deployments. This can be done through secondary legislation and I will lay the appropriate order before the House shortly.
	The changes will mean that law enforcement agencies will need to notify the Surveillance Commissioners, all retired senior judges, at the outset of undercover operations and get their prior approval for every deployment that lasts longer than 12 months. In addition, I am increasing the rank of the authorising officer. Deployments of undercover law enforcement officers will be authorised at assistant chief constable level or equivalent. Deployments lasting longer than 12 months will be authorised by a chief constable or equivalent. The rank of an authorising officer for emergency deployments will increase from inspector to superintendent level or equivalent. These changes will promote the highest standards of professionalism and excellence in this most sensitive area of policing and therefore achieve the aims of new clause 28. I hope they will be welcomed by the House.
	On schedule 7, there is clearly debate on whether this requires further modification along the lines proposed in some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) and others. For the purposes of the debate today, I put it to my hon. Friend and to the Chair of the Joint Committee that it is premature to consider making such changes because the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of these powers in the case of David Miranda. The Government, sensibly, will want to examine carefully any recommendations he makes in his report, and I am sure that the Joint Committee on Human Rights and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark will want to do likewise. It would be wrong to pre-empt that report or commit now to implementing its recommendations. It is for the independent reviewer to make recommendations, but it is for the Government and Parliament to decide what legislative changes should flow from them.
	Given the importance of these issues, any such legislative proposals should be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny, as with the provisions in the Bill, rather than being implemented through secondary legislation, as my hon.
	Friend the Member for Cambridge suggests in amendment 150. Although I welcome this contribution—
	Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 14 October).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
	Question agreed to.
	New Clause 11 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 12
	 — 
	Credit for time in custody awaiting extradition to United Kingdom to serve sentence

‘In section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 (persons unlawfully at large), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	“(3A) Where—
	(a) a person is extradited to the United Kingdom from a category 1 territory for the purpose of serving a term of imprisonment or another form of detention mentioned in subsection (2) of this section, and
	(b) the person was for any time kept in custody in that territory with a view to the extradition (and not also for any other reason),
	the Secretary of State shall exercise the power under that subsection to direct that account shall be taken of that time in calculating the period for which the person is liable to be detained.
	(3B) In subsection (3A) of this section “category 1 territory” means a territory designated under the Extradition Act 2003 for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act.”’.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 28
	 — 
	Court and tribunal fees

‘(1) In prescribing a fee under an enactment specified in subsection (2), the Lord Chancellor may with the consent of the Treasury prescribe a fee of an amount which is intended to exceed the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged.
	(2) The enactments are—
	(a) section 92 of the Courts Act 2003 (Senior Courts, county courts and magistrates’ courts fees);
	(b) section 54 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (Court of Protection fees);
	(c) section 58(4)(b) of that Act (Public Guardian fees);
	(d) section 42 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (tribunal fees).
	(3) Before prescribing a fee by virtue of subsection (1) under an enactment specified in subsection (2)(a), (b) or (d), the Lord Chancellor must have regard to—
	(a) the financial position of the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible, including in particular any costs incurred by those courts and tribunals that are not being met by current fee income, and
	(b) the competitiveness of the legal services market.
	(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(a), the courts and tribunals for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible are the
	courts listed in section 1(1) of the Courts Act 2003 and the tribunals listed in section 39(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.
	(5) A fee prescribed by virtue of subsection (1) under section 58(4)(b) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 must be used to finance the efficient and effective discharge of functions of the Public Guardian.
	(6) A fee prescribed by virtue of subsection (1) under any other enactment specified in subsection (2) must be used to finance an efficient and effective system of courts and tribunals.
	(7) A statutory instrument—
	(a) containing an order or regulations under an enactment specified in subsection (2), and
	(b) setting a fee for the first time in excess of the cost of anything in respect of which the fee is charged,
	may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.—(Damian Green.)
	Brought up, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 26
	 — 
	Assault on workers in public facing roles

‘(1) A person, being a member of the public, who assaults a worker—
	(a) in the course of that worker’s employment, or
	(b) by reason of that worker’s employment, commits an offence.
	(2) No offence is committed—
	(a) under subsection (1)(a) unless the person who assaults knows or ought to know that the worker is acting in the course of the worker’s employment;
	(b) under subsection (1)(b) unless the assault is motivated, in whole or in part, by malice towards the worker by reason of the worker’s employment.
	(3) In this section—
	“worker” means a person whose employment involves dealing with members of the public, to any extent, but only if that employment involves—
	(a) being physically present in the same place and at the same time as one or more members of the public; and(b) (i) interacting with those members of the public for the purposes of the employment; or (ii) providing a service to either particular members of the public or the public generally.
	“employment” in this context means any paid or unpaid work whether under a contract, apprenticeship, or otherwise.
	(4) Evidence from a single source is sufficient evidence to establish for the purpose of subsection (1) whether a person is a worker.
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this Act is liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.’.—(Jack Dromey.)
	Brought up,
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 224, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 104
	 — 
	Offence of forced marriage

Amendments made: 49,page75,line17, after ‘offence’ insert ‘under the law of England and Wales’.
	Amendment 50,page75,line22, after ‘offence’ insert ‘under the law of England and Wales’.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 112
	 — 
	Abolition of Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom

Amendment made: 51,page80,line24, at end insert—
	‘( ) The Secretary of State may secure the reimbursement of payments made under section 61(5) or (7) of the Police Act 1996 (payment by Scottish Ministers or Department of Justice in Northern Ireland towards expenses incurred by the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom) to the extent that, by reason of the abolition of the Board, the payments are not needed.’.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 114
	 — 
	Consultation about regulations: England and Wales

Amendments made: 52,page83,line22, leave out ‘Police Advisory Board for England and Wales’ and insert ‘appropriate advisory or negotiating body’.
	Amendment 53,page83,line24, at end insert—
	‘(1A) In subsection (1) above, “the appropriate advisory or negotiating body” means—
	(a) as regards England and Wales, the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales;
	(b) as regards Scotland, the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland.’.
	Amendment 54,page83,line25, after ‘above’ insert ‘as regards England and Wales,’.
	Amendment 55,page83,line37, leave out from ‘paragraph’ to end of line 40 and insert ‘3, for sub-paragraph (3) there is substituted—
	‘(3) The Secretary of State shall—
	(a) consult with the Police Advisory Board for England and Wales before exercising the power as regards England and Wales;
	(b) consult with the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland before exercising the power as regards Scotland;
	(c) consult with the Northern Ireland Policing Board and the Police Association for Northern Ireland before exercising the power as regards Northern Ireland.”’. —(Damian Green.)

Clause 129
	 — 
	Date of extradition hearing

Amendment made: 56,page99,line6, leave out from ‘But’ to end of line 8 and insert ‘if proceedings in respect of the extradition are adjourned under section 8A or 8B, the permitted period is extended by the number of days for which the proceedings are so adjourned.”’.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 134
	 — 
	Appeals

Amendments made: 57,page103,line2, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 28 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 1 territory)—
	(a) in subsection (4), for “section may” there is substituted “section—
	(a) may”;
	(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted “, but
	(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”’.
	Amendment 58,page103,line13, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 105 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 2 territory)—
	(a) in subsection (4), for “section may” there is substituted “section—
	(a) may”;
	(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted “, but
	(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”’.
	Amendment 59,page103,line20, leave out from ‘subsection’ to third ‘the’ in line 22 and insert ‘(7) there is inserted—
	‘(7A) Where a person gives notice of application for leave to appeal after the end of the permitted period (whether or not the application is for leave to appeal on human rights grounds),”.’.
	Amendment 60,page103,line25, at end insert—
	‘( ) In section 110 of that Act (appeal against discharge by Secretary of State)—
	(a) in subsection (4), for “section may” there is substituted “section—
	(a) may”;
	(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted “, but
	(b) lies only with the leave of the High Court.”’.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 144
	 — 
	Low-value shoplifting

Amendment made: 61,page117,line13, at end insert—
	‘(5A) Any reference in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to an “indictable offence” has effect as if it included a reference to low-value shoplifting (as defined in section 22A(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980).
	(5B) In section 84 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (definitions), after subsection (2) there is inserted—
	“(2A) In subsection (2)(a), the reference to an “indictable offence” has effect as if it included a reference to low-value shoplifting (as defined in section 22A(3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980).”’.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 147
	 — 
	Court and tribunal fees

Amendment made: 137,page118, leave out Clause 147. —(Damian Green.)

Clause 149
	 — 
	Orders and regulations

Amendment made: 62,page119,line21, at end insert ‘, but this does not apply to a power of the Scottish Ministers to make an order under section 152’.
	Amendment 138,page119, leave out line 23.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 151
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made:: 63,page120,line11, at end insert—
	‘() section [Violent offender orders];’.
	Amendment 64,page120,line12, leave out ‘Part 9’ and insert ‘sections 103 and 104’.
	Amendment 65,page120,line14, leave out ‘114’ and insert ‘114(1), (2) and (4)’.
	Amendment 66,page120,line17, leave out ‘section 128’ and insert ‘sections 128, [Fees for criminal record certificates etc]’.
	Amendment 67,page120,line17, at end insert ‘and [Power of community support officer to issue fixed penalty notice for cycle light offence]’.
	Amendment 68,page120,line18, leave out ‘section’ and insert ‘sections [Credit for time in custody awaiting extradition to United Kingdom to serve sentence] and’.
	Amendment 69,page120, leave out line 19 and insert—
	‘(j) section 144 except subsection (5B);
	‘(k) section 146.’.
	Amendment 105,page120,line23, after ‘100’ insert ‘,[Functions of Scottish Ministers under Firearms Acts]’.
	Amendment 70,page120,line23, at end insert—
	‘() section 114(3);’.
	Amendment 71,page120,line32, at end insert—
	‘() section 114(5);’.
	Amendment 139,page120,line37, leave out ‘147’ and insert ‘[Court and tribunal fees]’.
	Amendment 72,page120,line37, at end insert—
	‘( ) Section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland] extends only to Scotland.’.
	Amendment 73,page120,line38, at end insert—
	‘(5A) Section 144(5B) has the same extent as section 84 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the powers conferred by section 384 of that Act (power to extend Act to the Channel Islands and powers to make provisions of that Act apply with modifications in relation to the Channel Islands, British overseas territories and the Isle of Man) are exercisable in relation to the amendment of that Act made by section 144(5B) of this Act.’.—(Damian Green.)

Clause 151
	 — 
	Extent

Amendments made: 92,page120,line11, at end insert—
	‘() section [Saving and transitional provision];’.
	Amendment 93,page120,line31, at end insert—
	‘() section [Sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, etc] and Schedule [Amendments of Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003];’.
	Amendment 74,page121,line9, at end insert—
	‘() section [Fees for criminal record certificates etc], which comes into force at the end of the period of 2 months beginning with that day;’.
	Amendment 75,page121,line11, at end insert—
	‘( ) section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland].’.
	Amendment 76,page121,line19, at end insert—
	‘( ) Section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland] comes into force on whatever day the Scottish Ministers appoint by order.’.
	Amendment 77,page121,line27, at end insert—
	‘( ) The Scottish Ministers may by order make whatever saving, transitional or transitory provision they think appropriate in connection with the coming into force of section [Offence of forced marriage: Scotland].’.
	Amendment 78,page121,line27, at end insert—
	‘( ) An order under this section bringing into force on a particular day a provision which refers to the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland may, if it appears to the Secretary of State that no body of that name will be in existence on that day, bring the provision into force subject to whatever consequential amendment or transitional provision the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.’.—(Damian Green.)

Schedule 6
	 — 
	Powers to seize invalid passports etc

Amendments made: 79,page145,line2, at end insert—
	( ) may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power under this paragraph;
	( ) may authorise a person to carry out on the officer’s behalf a search under this paragraph.’.
	Amendment 80,page145,line29, at end insert—
	‘( ) A constable—
	(a) may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power under this paragraph;
	(b) may authorise a person to carry out on the constable’s behalf a search under this paragraph.’.
	Amendment 81,page146,line5, leave out paragraph 5. —(Damian Green.)

Schedule 8
	 — 
	Minor and consequential amendments

Amendment proposed: 96,page155,line32, leave out paragraphs 24 to 27.—(Jack Dromey.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 229, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Amendments made: 82,in schedule 8, page158,line20, at end insert—
	‘Government of Wales Act 2006 (c.32)
	In Schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006 (legislative competence of Welsh Assembly), in the list of exceptions in paragraph 12, for “Anti-social behaviour orders” there is substituted “Orders to protect people from behaviour that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress”.’.
	94,page161,line8, at end insert—

‘Part 1A
	 — 
	Amendments relating to Part 8A

Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.46)
	In section 19AA of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (samples etc from sex offenders), in subsection (1)(c), after “an order under section” there is inserted “122A or”.In section 19AB of that Act (supplementary provision in risk of sexual harm order cases), in subsection (7), at the end of the definition of “risk of sexual harm order” there is inserted—
	“and also includes an order under section 122A of the 2003 Act (sexual risk orders);”.
	Police Act 1997 (c.50)
	(1) Section 113CA of the Police Act 1997 (suitability information relating to children) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (f) of subsection (2) there is inserted—
	“(fa) if a sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 103C(2) or 103D(1) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103E(5) of that Act;
	(fb) if an interim sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 103F(4) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103F(5) of that Act;”.
	(2) After paragraph (i) of that subsection there is inserted—
	“(ia) if a sexual risk order, made under section 122A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 122A(7) or 122C(1) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122D(4) of that Act;
	(ib) if an interim sexual risk order, made under section 122E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 122E(4) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122E(5) of that Act;”.
	(1) Section 113CB of that Act (suitability information relating to protected adults) is amended as follows.
	(2) After paragraph (f) of subsection (2) there is inserted—
	“(fa) if a sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 103C(2) or 103D(1) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103E(5) of that Act;
	(fb) if an interim sexual harm prevention order, made under section 103F of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 103F(4) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 103F(5) of that Act;”.
	(2) After paragraph (i) of that subsection there is inserted—
	“(ia) if a sexual risk order, made under section 122A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which the prohibitions have effect by virtue of section 122A(7) or 122C(1) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122D(4) of that Act;
	(ib) if an interim sexual risk order, made under section 122E of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, is in effect in respect of the applicant—
	(i) the prohibitions described in that order;
	(ii) the date of that order;
	(iii) the period for which that order has effect by virtue of section 122E(4) of that Act;
	(iv) details as to whether the order has been varied or renewed under section 122E(5) of that Act;”.
	Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)
	(1) Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (parenting orders) is amended as follows.
	(2) For “sexual offences prevention order” there is substituted “sexual harm prevention order”—
	(a) in subsection (1)(b);
	(b) in subsection (6)(a).
	(3) For subsection (9) there is substituted—
	“(9) In this section ‘sexual harm prevention order’ means an order under section 103A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (sexual harm prevention orders).”
	Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c.42)
	In section 88 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 87: interpretation), in subsection (4)(c), after “interim notification order,” there is inserted “sexual harm prevention order, interim sexual harm prevention order,”.In section 89 of that Act (young offenders: parental directions), in the Table in subsection (1), after “interim notification order,” there is inserted “sexual harm prevention order, interim sexual harm prevention order,”.In section 91A of that Act (review of indefinite notification requirements: qualifying young offender), in subsection (2)(b), after “not subject to” there is inserted “a sexual harm prevention order under section 103A, an interim sexual harm prevention order under section 103F,”.In the cross-heading before section 104 of that Act (sexual offences prevention orders: application and grounds), after
	“orders”
	there is inserted
	“(Scotland and Northern Ireland)”.
	In section 108 of that Act (SOPOs: variations, renewals and discharges), in subsection (8)(b) the words “2 or” and “England and Wales or” are omitted.In section 109 of that Act (interim SOPOs), in subsection (7)(a) the words “2A or” and “England and Wales or” are omitted.
	(1) Section 110 of that Act (SOPO and interim SOPOs: appeals) is amended as follows.
	(2) For the heading there is substituted “Appeals in relation to SOPOs and interim SOPOs: Northern Ireland”.
	(3) In subsections (1)(c), (2) and (3)(b), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “a county court”.
	(4) In subsection (4), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “the county court”.
	(5) For subsection (5) there is substituted—
	“(5) Any order made by a county court on an appeal under subsection (1)(c) or (2) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a court of summary jurisdiction) is for the purposes of section 108(7) or 109(6) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the county court).”
	(1) Section 113 of that Act (offence: breach of SOPO or interim SOPO) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading, at the end there is inserted “etc”.
	(3) In subsection (1), in paragraph (d) the words “2, 2A or” and “in England and Wales and” are omitted.
	(4) After that subsection there is inserted—
	“(1A) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, he contravenes a prohibition imposed by—
	(a) a sexual harm prevention order, or
	(b) an interim sexual harm prevention order,
	other than a prohibition on foreign travel.”
	In the cross-heading before section 114 of that Act (foreign travel orders: applications and grounds), after “orders” there is inserted “(Scotland and Northern Ireland)”.
	(1) Section 117A of that Act (foreign travel orders: surrender of passports) is amended as follows.
	(2) For the heading there is substituted “Surrender of passports: Northern Ireland”.
	(3) In subsection (2), after “at a police station” there is inserted “in Northern Ireland”.
	(4) In subsection (3), at the end there is inserted “(unless the person is subject to an equivalent prohibition under another order)”.
	In section 117B of that Act (surrender of passports: Scotland), at the end of subsection (3) there is inserted “(unless the person is subject to an equivalent prohibition under another order)”.
	(1) Section 119 of that Act (foreign travel orders: appeals) is amended as follows.
	(2) For the heading there is substituted “Appeals in relation to foreign travel orders: Northern Ireland”.
	(3) In subsection (1), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “a county court”.
	(4) In subsection (2), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “the county court”.
	(5) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
	“(3) Any order made by a county court on an appeal under subsection (1)(a) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a court of summary jurisdiction) is for the purposes of section 118(5) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the county court).”
	(1) Section 122 (offence: breach of foreign travel order) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading, at the end there is inserted “etc”.
	(3) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for “excuse, he” there is substituted “excuse—
	(a) he”;
	(b) at the end there is inserted “, or
	(b) he contravenes a prohibition on foreign travel imposed by a sexual harm prevention order.”
	(4) In subsection (1B)(a) the words “England and Wales and” are omitted.
	In the cross-heading before section 123 of that Act, after
	“orders”
	there is inserted
	“(Northern Ireland)”.
	(1) Section 123 of that Act (risk of sexual harm orders: application, grounds and effect) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1)—
	(a) for “A chief officer of police” there is substituted “The Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”;
	(b) for “a magistrates’ court” there is substituted “a court of summary jurisdiction”;
	(c) for “his police area” (in both places) there is substituted “Northern Ireland”;
	(d) for “the chief officer” (in both places) there is substituted “the Chief Constable”.
	(3) Subsection (2) is repealed.
	(1) Section 125 (RSHOs: variation, renewals and discharges) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for paragraphs (b) to (d) there is substituted—
	“(b) the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.”
	(3) In subsection (3), for “and (if they wish to be heard) the other persons mentioned in subsection (2)” there is substituted “,and the other person mentioned in subsection (2) (if that person wishes to be heard)”.
	(4) In subsection (5), for the words after “without the consent of the defendant and” there is substituted “the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”.
	(5) In subsection (7), for paragraphs (b) and (c) there is inserted—
	“(b) a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessions district which includes the area where the defendant resides;
	(c) where the application is made by the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, any court of summary jurisdiction.”
	In section 126 (interim RSHOs), in subsection (2)(b), for “the person who has made that application” there is substituted “the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland”.
	(1) Section 127 (RSHOs and interim RSHOs) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “a county court”.
	(3) In subsection (2), for “the Crown Court” there is substituted “the county court”.
	(4) For subsection (3) there is substituted—
	“(3) Any order made by a county court on an appeal under subsection (1)(a) or (b) (other than an order directing that an application be re-heard by a court of summary jurisdiction) is for the purposes of section 125(7) or 126(5) (respectively) to be treated as if it were an order of the court from which the appeal was brought (and not an order of the county court).”
	(1) Section 128 (offence: breach of RSHO or interim RSHO) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading, after “interim RSHO” there is inserted “etc”.
	(3) For subsections (1) and (1A) there is substituted—
	“(1) A person who, without reasonable excuse, does anything that the person is prohibited from doing by—
	(a) a risk of sexual harm order,
	(b) an interim risk of sexual harm order,
	(c) a sexual risk order,
	(d) an interim sexual risk order,
	(e) an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland), or
	(f) an order under section 5 of that Act (interim risk of sexual harm orders in Scotland),
	commits an offence.”
	(1) Section 129 (effect of conviction etc of an offence under section 128) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading, after “section 128” there is inserted “etc”
	(3) In subsection (1A)(a), after “an offence under section” there is inserted “122H or”.
	(4) For subsection (5) there is substituted—
	“(5) In this section ‘relevant order’ means—
	(a) where the conviction, finding or caution within subsection (1) is in respect of a breach of a risk of sexual harm order or a sexual risk order, that order;
	(b) where the conviction, finding or caution within subsection (1) is in respect of a breach of an interim risk of sexual harm order or an interim sexual risk order, any risk of sexual harm order or sexual risk order made on the hearing of the application to which the interim order relates or, if no such order is made, the interim order.
	(6) In subsection (5)—
	‘risk of sexual harm order’ includes an order under section 2 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005;
	“interim risk of sexual harm order’ includes an order under section 5 of that Act.”
	(1) Section 133 of that Act (Part 2: general interpretation) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), at the appropriate places there is inserted—
	“‘Interim sexual harm prevention order’ has the meaning given by section 103F(2);”;
	“‘interim sexual risk order’ has the meaning given by section 122E(2);”;
	“‘prohibition on foreign travel’ has the meaning given by section 103D(2) or 122C(2);”;
	“‘sexual harm prevention order’ has the meaning given by section 103A(1);”;
	“‘sexual risk order’ has the meaning given by section 122A(1);”.
	In section 136 of that Act (Part 2: Northern Ireland), for subsection (8) there is substituted—
	“(8) The reference in section 101 to the Crown Court is to be read as a reference to a county court.”
	Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (asp9)
	(1) Section 7 of the Protection of Children and Prevention of Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2005 (offence: breach of RSHO or interim RSHO) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading, after “interim RSHO” there is inserted “etc”.
	(3) In subsection (2), after “an order made under” there is inserted “section 122A or 122E or”.
	(1) Section 8 of that Act (effect of conviction etc under section 7 of that Act or section 128 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the heading, after “or section” there is inserted “122H or”.
	(3) In subsection (1)(a), for the words after “an offence under section 7 above” there is substituted “,section 122H of the 2003 Act (breach of sexual risk order or interim sexual risk order in England and Wales) or section 128 of that Act (breach of risk of sexual harm order or interim risk of sexual harm order in Northern Ireland)”.
	(4) In subsection (1)(b), after “an offence under section” there is inserted “122H or”.
	(5) In the definition of “relevant order” in subsection (5)—
	(a) in paragraph (a), for “section 123” there is substituted “an order under section 122A or section 123”;
	(b) in paragraph (b), after “a breach of” there is inserted “a sexual risk order under section 122A of the 2003 Act or”;
	(c) for paragraphs (c) and (d) there is substituted—
	“(c) where the conviction or finding referred to in subsection (1)(a), (c) or (d) above is in respect of a breach of an interim risk of sexual harm order under section 5 above or an interim order under section 122E or 126 of the 2003 Act—
	(i) any risk of sexual harm order or sexual risk order made upon the application to which the interim order relates; or
	(ii) if no risk of sexual harm order or sexual risk order has been made, the interim order;
	(d) where the caution referred to in subsection (1)(b) above is in respect of a breach of an interim order under section 122E or 126 of the 2003 Act—
	(i) any order under section 122A or 123 of that Act made upon the application to which the interim order relates; or
	(ii) if no order under section 122A or 123 of that Act has been made, the interim order.”
	Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (c.38)
	In section 56 of the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 (cross-border provisions relating to sexual offences), subsection (2) is repealed.
	83,page161,line36, at end insert—
	“Police Act 1997 (c.50)
	In section 137 of the Police Act 1997 (extent), in subsection (2) (provisions extending to England and Wales only), after ‘sections’ in paragraph (e) there is inserted ‘125(1A),’.”
	84,page163,line35, at end insert—
	“
	Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/602)
	In article 14 of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (pensions: special constables and police cadets), in paragraph (2), for ‘the Police Negotiating Board for the United Kingdom’ there is substituted ‘the Police Negotiating Board for Scotland’.”
	85,page164,line4, leave out ‘The’ and insert ‘In the Schedule, the’.
	86,page164,line32, at end insert—
	
		
			 ‘Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2013 (S.I. 2013/602) In Schedule 1, paragraph 5(4) to (6).’. 
		
	
	87,page165,line4, at end insert—
	“In section 28 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 1 territory), in subsection (5), for ‘Notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal’.”
	88,page165,line23, at end insert—
	“In section 105 of that Act (appeal against discharge at extradition hearing: category 2 territory), in subsection (5), for ‘Notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal’.”
	89,page165,line24, leave out paragraph 74 and insert—
	“74 (1) Section 108 of that Act (appeal against extradition order: category 2 territory) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (4), for the words before ‘is 14 days’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal under this section must be given—
	(a) in accordance with rules of court, and
	(a) subject to subsections (5) and (7A), before the end of the permitted period, which’.
	(3) In subsection (5)—
	(a) for ‘But notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal’
	(b) after ‘if it is an’ there is inserted ‘application for leave to’.
	(4) In subsection (6), for the words before ‘before the person is extradited’ there is substituted ‘Notice of application for leave to appeal on human rights grounds given after the end of the permitted period must be given’.
	(5) In subsection (7)—
	(a) for ‘notice of an appeal’ there is substituted ‘notice of application for leave to appeal’;
	(b) for ‘consider the appeal’ there is substituted ‘grant leave’;
	(c) for ‘to consider the appeal’ there is substituted ‘for the appeal to be heard’.
	(6) In subsection (8), for ‘“appeal on human rights grounds” means an appeal’ there is substituted ‘“to appeal on human rights grounds” means to appeal’.”
	90,page165,line26, at end insert—
	In section 110 of that Act (appeal against discharge by Secretary of State), in subsection (5), for “Notice of an appeal” there is substituted “Notice of application for leave to appeal”.’.
	91,page166,line33, at end insert—

‘Part 4
	 — 
	Amendments consequential on establishment of Police Service of Scotland

Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11)
	(1) Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (detention) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 20B(10), for paragraph (b) of the definition of “a specified chief officer of police” there is substituted—
	(b) the chief constable of the Police Service of Scotland, where—
	(i) the person who provided the material, or from whom it was taken, resides in Scotland, or
	(ii) the chief constable believes that the person is in, or is intending to come to, Scotland.”
	(3) In paragraph 20J—
	(a) for paragraphs (d) and (e) of the definition of “police force” there is substituted—
	(d) the Police Service of Scotland;
	(e) the Scottish Police Authority;”;
	(b) in the second of the three definitions of “responsible chief officer of police”, for the words after “the chief constable of” there is substituted “the Police Service of Scotland”.
	Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (c.28)
	In section 18D of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (use of retained material), in subsection (2) for “the Scottish Police Services Authority” there is substituted “the Scottish Police Authority”.In section 18E(1) of that Act (interpretation of sections 18 to 18E), for paragraph (d) of the definition of “police force” there is substituted—
	(d) the Police Service of Scotland;”.’.—(Mr Harper.)

New Clause 3
	 — 
	Dog control notices

(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—
	(a) states that he or she is of that belief;
	(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;
	(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice;
	(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and
	(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.
	(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—
	(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;
	(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;
	(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;
	(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and
	(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.
	(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
	(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) above as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.
	(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.
	(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in a wild state.—(Mr Reed.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Steve Reed: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dawn Primarolo: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 6—Dog number control notice—
	(1) This section applies where more than one dog is being kept in a domestic property in England or Wales.
	(2) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that the number of dogs being kept in a domestic property gives rise to a risk that any one or more of the dogs may become dangerously out of control while in or partly in the domestic property (“the risk”), he or she may serve on the person in charge a written control notice which—
	(a) states that the authorised officer is of that belief;
	(b) specifies the maximum number of dogs which, in the opinion of the authorised officer, are capable of being kept in the domestic property such as to sufficiently reduce the risk;
	(c) requires the person in charge to reduce the number of dogs kept in the domestic property to no more than the number specified under paragraph (b) and;
	(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the control notice must be complied with.
	(3) A control notice may be served on more than one person in respect of one domestic property.
	(4) It is an offence for a person without reasonable excuse to fail to comply with a requirement under subsection (2).
	(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
	(6) An authorised officer may make a complaint to a Magistrates’ Court if a person in charge fails, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer, to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified.
	(7) A Magistrates’ Court receiving a complaint under subsection (6) shall, if it finds that the person in charge has failed to comply with the steps required in a control notice, make an order in a summary way directing any of the dogs kept in the domestic property to be destroyed.
	(8) In this section—
	“authorised officer” means a person appointed by a local authority within whose area the domestic property is situated for the purposes of this section;
	“domestic property” means a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or both);
	“person in charge” means the owner or owners, and if different, person or persons for the time being in charge of the dogs.
	New clause 17—Community protection notices (dogs)—
	(1) An authorised person may issue a community protection notice (dogs) to the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog if they have reasonable cause to believe that—
	(a) the dog is not under sufficient control, and
	(b) preventative measures are required to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal.
	(2) An “authorised person” means a police officer, local authority dog warden, or other authorised person.
	(3) A community protection notice (dogs) is a notice that imposes any of the following requirements on the owner or person for the time being in control of the dog—
	(a) a requirement to have the dog microchipped;
	(b) a requirement to obtain third party liability insurance;
	(c) a requirement for the dog to be kept on a leash in public;
	(d) a requirement for the dog to be muzzled in public;
	(e) a requirement for the transferring or relinquishing of ownership of the dog without notifying the enforcing authority.
	(4) A community protection notice may be issued—
	(a) without notice, and
	(b) with immediate effect.
	(5) A person issued with a community protection notice (dogs) who fails to comply with it commits an offence.
	(6) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (5) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
	New clause 18—Requirement to fit a post box guard where a dog is present—
	(1) The Secretary of State shall bring forward regulations to require householders to fit a guard to their letterbox if—
	(a) the householder owns a dog,
	(b) the dog is kept in residential premises to which the letterbox is fitted,
	(c) the letterbox opens directly into those premises, and
	(d) a person may reasonably conclude that there is the possibility of the dog causing harm to someone using the letterbox.
	(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) shall include provision in respect of—
	(a) the size and style of the guard to be fitted, and
	(b) the householder to be liable to a civil penalty for any harm caused as a result of failing to comply with this requirement.
	(3) Regulations under this section—
	(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
	(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
	New clause 19—Written control notice—
	(1) Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control and requires greater control in any place, as a preventative measure to protect the public, the dog itself, or another protected animal, he or she may serve on the owner, and, if different, person for the time being in charge of the dog a written control notice which—
	(a) states that he or she is of that belief;
	(b) specifies the respects in which he or she believes the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog is failing to keep the dog under sufficient control;
	(c) specifies the steps he or she requires the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog to take in order to comply with the notice.
	(d) specifies the date by which the terms of the notice must be complied with; and
	(e) specifies the date that the notice expires which will not be for a period which exceeds six months.
	(2) In a control notice pursuant to subsection (1)(c) an authorised officer must require a dog to be microchipped (if not already done) and the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, register the dog with a microchip database, and may require the following steps, where appropriate, but not limited to—
	(a) keeping the dog muzzled as directed;
	(b) keeping the dog on a lead when in public or under control as directed;
	(c) requiring the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of the dog, to seek and implement expert advice about training and behaviour for the dog;
	(d) having the dog neutered where appropriate; and
	(e) keeping the dog away from particular places or persons.
	(3) Failure to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified, to the satisfaction of the authorised officer may lead to a complaint to a magistrates’ court under section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871.
	(4) The provisions of section 2 of the Dogs Act 1871 shall have effect if the owner, and if different, the person for the time being in charge of a dog fails to comply with the steps required in a control notice within the time period specified in accordance with subsection (3) above as they would apply if a dog was dangerous and not kept under proper control.
	(5) An “authorised officer” is a person that has been appointed by the local authority or police for the purposes of this Act.
	(6) A “protected animal” is one that is commonly domesticated in the British Islands, is under the control of man whether on a permanent or temporary basis, or is not living in wild state.
	(7) A person served with a dog control notice may appeal against the notice to a magistrates’ court within the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which that person was served with the notice.
	(8) The grounds on which a person served such a notice may appeal are one or more of the following—
	(a) that the notice contains required steps which are unreasonable in character, or extent, or are unnecessary; or
	(b) that there has been some defect or error in, or in connection with, the notice.
	(9) On hearing of the appeal the court may—
	(a) quash the dog control notice to which the appeal relates; or
	(b) vary the notice in such a manner as it thinks fit; or
	(c) dismiss the appeal.
	New clause 29—Improving the welfare of seized dogs—
	(1) Where an expert examination is required for a dog that is alleged to be one to which section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies that examination must be carried out and completed by both the defence and prosecution within 28 days of seizure of the dog and a written report produced within one week of the examination.
	(2) If the prosecution or defence fail to carry out the examination as described in subsection 1 within the requisite period the prosecution or defence, as the case may be, may not rely in evidence on any expert report involving an examination of that dog after the 28 day period unless the Court extends this period.
	(3) In considering any application to extend the examination period the Court must take into account the welfare of the dog, the costs of kennelling the dog and any other relevant matters.
	New clause 30—Rehoming of prohibited types of dog—
	(1) The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 4B(1)(b) (Destruction orders otherwise than on a conviction) after the first “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”, and after the second “owner” there is inserted “or prospective owner”.
	Amendment 143,in clause 98, page69,line43, leave out subsection 2(a).
	Amendment 140,page70, leave out line 3 and insert—
	(ii) for “injures any person” there is substituted “injures or kills any person or assistance dog”.’.
	Amendment 144, page70,line6, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.
	Amendment 145, page70,line7, after ‘householder’, add ‘or business’.
	Amendment 146, page70,line11, after ‘(or is both)’, add ‘or in premises used partially or wholly for business purposes’.
	Amendment 147,page70,line17, at end insert—
	(iii) D (if not present at any time) could have reasonably believed V to be in, or entering the building or part as a trespasser if they had been present.’.
	Amendment 134, page70,line23, at end insert—
	‘(1C) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) in a case where they, or an associated person, are being attacked by another person or another dog at the relevant time.
	(1D) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are a vet or someone working in a veterinary practice at the relevant time.
	(1E) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they themselves are the victim of any incident involving their dog.
	(1F) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are removing in connection with their work.
	(1G) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are required to maintain in any police or court proceedings or if they are assisting the courts as a witness (expert or otherwise).
	(1H) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog that they are authorised or required to look after in connection with their work.
	(1I) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are in charge of a dog they are looking after by virtue of the dog being in their kennels.
	(1J) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is a police dog or a dog being used in an official capacity to assist with their work.
	(1K) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the dog is an assistance dog.
	(1L) A person (“D”) is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if they are registered blind.
	(1M) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) if, as a result of any disability, they were not able to physically prevent the offence.
	(1N) A person (“D”) is not guilty of the aggravated offence under subsection (1) unless they encouraged the dog in its actions.’.
	Amendment 133, page70,line28, at end insert—
	‘(2A) If an owner of a dog, and if different the person for the time being in charge of a dog unreasonably omits to keep the dog under proper control, or if he causes, or encourages the dog to attack a protected animal, and any of those things lead to the injury or death of a protected animal he shall be guilty of an offence.
	(2B) A “protected animal” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.’.
	Amendment 141, page70,line28, at end insert—
	(iii) for “two years” there is substituted “fourteen years”.’.
	Amendment 142,page70,line28, at end insert—
	‘(1C) In proceedings for an offence under section 3(1) it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he took reasonable steps to prevent the dog being dangerously out of control.’.
	Amendment 135,page70,line41, at end insert—
	‘(1B) Anyone authorised to seize a dog under subsection 1A is exempted from the provisions of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.’.
	Amendment 98,page70, leave out lines 45 and 46 and insert
	‘for the purposes of this Act, “assistance dog” means a dog which has been accredited to assist a disabled person by a prescribed charity or other organisation.’.
	Amendment 97,page70,line46, at end insert
	‘“dwelling”, for the purposes of section 3, includes enclosed buildings within the curtilage of the dwelling and associated with it, where a person might reasonably expect to find a dog, such as garages, sheds and other outbuildings;’.
	Amendment 132,page70,line47, leave out subsection (6)(b).
	Amendment 99, in clause 99,page71,line33, at end add—.
	‘(5) After section 7 there is inserted—
	“7A Fit and proper person code of practice
	(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a draft code of practice giving guidance about the matters to be considered when determining whether someone is a fit and proper person for the purposes of sections 1, 4 and 4B.
	(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
	(a) any draft code of practice prepared under this section; and
	(b) an order to be made by statutory instrument providing for the code to come into force, subject to subsection (4).
	(3) Before preparing such a draft code, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.
	(4) Where a draft is laid before Parliament under subsection (2)(a), if neither House passes a resolution disapproving the draft within 40 days—
	(a) the Secretary of State may issue the code in the form of the draft; and
	(b) it shall come into force in accordance with provision made under subsection (2)(b).”.’.

Steve Reed: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to move this new clause, which stands in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith).
	Dangerous dogs, or, perhaps more accurately, irresponsible dog owners, are a serious public threat. Not only do we have a duty to act, but there is widespread agreement on what form that action should take. I regret to say that the Government are the only ones standing meekly on the sidelines, refusing to take the necessary action. Having failed to lead from the start with this Bill, the Government refused to act in Committee, despite the support of their own Back Benchers for such action, but I hope, with a new Minister in place, there will be a fresh approach and a chance to move forward and tackle this menace.
	I want to start by speaking to amendment 141, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). I have strong sympathy with the case he is making, and which he made in Committee, for a much stronger punishment for irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to maim and kill. We were deeply disappointed, however, that the Government failed to meet their own promise, made in an open Committee, to publish the findings of a consultation on what level of sentencing would be appropriate in such cases before the Bill returned to the Chamber.
	As it was, the Minister wrote to members of the Committee last Friday, after the tabling deadline. An e-mail was sent at 5.50 in the evening, stating that the Government had not had time to review the consultation responses, and that therefore no Government amendment would be put before the House. It was in good faith that the Opposition did not table an amendment, as we believed his predecessor’s word that the consultation would result in a Government amendment. Announcing that he would not do anything after the tabling deadline was not a welcome start to the Minister’s tenure in the Home Office. I hope that we will not see a repeat of those tactics.

Richard Fuller: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the families and loved ones of victims who have been injured or killed by out-of-control dogs will be very disappointed that their representatives in this House will not be able to vote on the precise measures and changes that are required to increase the sentences for such actions?

Steve Reed: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have read the comments that he made in Committee and sympathise with his views. I hope to address them further in my comments.
	The Opposition supported increasing the guideline prison terms for manslaughter under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in Committee. We continue to support an increase, although we would prefer to have the consultation response before the House so that an informed decision can be made. Our starting point is that the current maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment for allowing one’s dog to kill someone is far too lenient. I hope that the hon. Member for Bedford will accept our support in principle for toughening the sentencing guidelines and work with us in the other place to agree on appropriate sentencing guidelines, informed by the consultation response when the Government get around to publishing it.
	New clause 3 would introduce dog control notices. I believe that this measure enjoys widespread cross-party support in the House and near-unanimous support from outside organisations with an interest in dangerous dogs and animal welfare. When reading the Committee transcripts, I was struck by the strength of support from Government Back Benchers, in addition to the support from Labour Members. However, that should not be surprising. Taking responsible, tough action to protect people from dangerous dogs and irresponsible dog owners is plain common sense and something that Members on all sides of the House should support.
	Yesterday, I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) to meet the father of Jade Anderson, who was savaged to death by four dogs when she was just 14 years old. Michael Anderson and his friend Royston had cycled down from Bolton in support of the Justice for Jade campaign. They came to lobby Members of this House because they want dog control notices to be introduced in England and Wales, as they have been in Scotland. To lose a child is bad enough; to live with the knowledge of the appalling circumstances in which they died is almost too much to bear. I can offer Mr Anderson only my support, sympathy and admiration that he is seeking to make something good out of such desperate and tragic circumstances.
	Sadly, Jade’s case is not an isolated one. Since 2005, nine children and seven adults have died as a consequence of dog attacks. In the three years to February 2013, 18,000 people were admitted to hospital in England and Wales after dog attacks. That is almost 20 attacks a day that result in someone ending up in hospital. Not only could many of those attacks be prevented by dog control notices, but the cost of those attacks to the NHS, the police and communities is an avoidable drain on already overstretched resources.
	Dog control notices are not punitive. They provide a menu of options that local authorities and the police can use to act in the interests of their local communities against dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I commend my hon. Friend and those who tabled new clause 3, which would improve the Bill. May I also commend to him and other hon. Members new clause 17, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? It would dovetail nicely with new clause 3 and would allow the notices to be published there and then at the point when they are needed, rather than waiting for an attack to take place.

Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend, who has an abiding interest in this issue, for that most helpful intervention. I will seek to address his point further in my comments.
	Dog control notices include the following measures: requiring a potentially dangerous dog to be muzzled whenever it is in a public place; requiring it to be kept on a lead in places to which the public have access; neutering male dogs; and requiring dogs and dog owners to attend training classes to bring potentially dangerous animals back under control. A dog control notice would also require the dog to be microchipped and registered, so that any dogs that were found to be in breach could be identified clearly and unambiguously—something that is absolutely necessary for effective enforcement.

Mark Spencer: May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to new clause 19, which appears in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)? It talks about not only the dog owner, but the person who is in control of the dog at the time. I hope that he will recognise that it is important to hold that person responsible.

Steve Reed: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible and helpful point. I recognise the sense of what he says.
	It is disappointing that on Second Reading and in Committee, the Government resisted dog control notices and said that community protection notices would be sufficient. I can only hope that, having read the Committee transcripts, the new Minister will bring fresh eyes to the issue and use fresh ears to listen to the experience of outside organisations, the victims of dog attacks and Members from all parts of the House who want tougher action.
	The use of community protection notices, as advocated by the Government, is simply not sufficient. They are slow to serve, can be challenged in the courts, causing further delays, and have been described by one outside organisation as a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The Government had a perfect opportunity to show leadership on this issue. They could have led this House and this country to act to protect children and adults alike from further dog attacks. However, the powers in the Bill and the limited changes to which the Government are clinging are not sufficient—not even close.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for new clause 3. Does he agree that one of the successes of devolution is that we in Westminster can learn from the experiences of the devolved authorities in various matters and do
	not have to reinvent the wheel? Will he refer later in his speech to the experiences of Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Steve Reed: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reference to the situation in Scotland. Given that the experience of dog control notices in Scotland shows that they work effectively, it is all the more baffling that the Government refuse to support them. I hope that the House can persuade the Minister to change his position.
	The position for which I am arguing is not just a Labour one. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has a coalition majority, considered the Bill and concluded:
	“We consider there to be strong evidence that targeted measures would be more effective in tackling dog-related problems than the general powers proposed under the Government’s anti-social behaviour and crime legislation…We recommend that the Government reconsider its rejection of our recommendation and legislate to introduce Dog Control Notices to provide law enforcers with tailored powers to tackle aggressive dogs before they injure people and other animals.”

Luciana Berger: My hon. Friend has eloquently set out the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s response on this serious issue. I do not know whether he saw the Chair of that Committee’s summary of what was in the report, in which she said that what the Government had brought forward was “woefully inadequate”. She said that unless we have a measure that deals effectively with prevention, we will not tackle the problem at its source. Does my hon. Friend agree that without the introduction of dog control notices, what the Government propose is indeed woefully inadequate?

Steve Reed: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting that sensible view on the record. Of course, I am sympathetic to it. Indeed, I will add another sensible view, that of the chief executive of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said:
	“We remain unconvinced that CPNs will fulfil the same purpose as bespoke Dog Control Notices.”
	I could go on to read the evidence to the Bill Committee of organisation after organisation: the Kennel Club, Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, police and crime commissioners, the Local Government Association and the Association of Chief Police Officers. Although that would support my argument, I fear that a lengthy recitation would weary the House. However, two further sources of support for dog control notices are worth drawing to the House’s attention.
	First, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) helpfully drew the Bill Committee’s attention to the fact that before the general election, the Conservative party pledged to give police and councils more power to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs through the introduction of dog control notices. As it happens, the same is true of the Liberal Democrats, who also supported such notices when in opposition. We are used to the policies of one or other Government party being lost in coalition fudges, but I am not aware of a policy supported by both parties being lost in such a way. On this occasion, not only do I agree with Nick, but I am willing to agree with Dave as well. If we all agree, for goodness’ sake let us act and bring in long-overdue
	and much-needed tough but fair measures to deal with dangerous dogs. Six thousand hospitalisations a year is too many simply to look the other way. I would challenge any Member to sit down with Michael Anderson, Jade’s father, as I did yesterday, and not conclude that the measures that we suggest must be on the statute book.
	I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who is in her place, for tabling new clause 6, which is similar to new clause 3 in many ways. It highlights her commitment to bringing her constituency issues to the House in the most powerful way possible.
	New clauses 17, 29 and 30, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), were mentioned earlier. They include a number of further sensible and proportionate measures to deal with dangerous dogs, and I am sure that Members of the other place will want to study them carefully in their less time-pressured environment and take up many of them.
	I must push the Minister to accept new clause 3. To date, the Bill has been a missed opportunity for the Government. The need for tougher action is clear and well evidenced, and the desire to act has been endorsed not just by the parties of government before the last election but by the cross-party Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and by every major organisation that deals with dangerous dogs, animal welfare and irresponsible owners. The means to act are now before the Minister, and I urge him to take the chance to do so.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In the many months since the Government brought forward their provisional proposals, they have failed to persuade any of those good and sensible people and organisations of their case. Those are not stupid organisations and people, and I urge Members to support them and support new clause 3.

Steve Reed: We wait with bated breath to see whether the new Minister has now been convinced.

Mark Spencer: I rise to speak to new clause 19 and amendments 97 to 99, which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) tabled. Like the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), we are keen to ensure that there is provision for written notices so that not only dog owners but those in charge of a dog at any time have control of that animal and prevent it from causing injury or damage to any person or any other animal.
	Of course, there has to be a balance in the process, and I emphasise the need for home owners to be able to protect their property using a dog. Dogs must be allowed to protect property from burglars or trespassers who may be there to commit a crime. It is important that we get that balance right and that home owners are allowed to protect their property. Dogs must be allowed to defend property and act in a territorial manner, as they are inclined to do, without a home owner having to fear prosecution.
	I also wish to draw attention to the plight of those who are disabled and have a guide dog or hearing dog. People who are fortunate enough to be able-bodied can only imagine what it must be like for a blind person if
	their guide dog is attacked in the street. Not only do they lose their means of getting home, but the animal for which they care is disabled or injured, and they are unable to get it the assistance it requires. I hope the Minister will ensure that the Bill protects and provides adequately for people who have a guide dog or hearing dog. For a disabled person to be in those circumstances is absolutely intolerable.
	Finally, I seek the Minister’s assurance that he will look long and hard at the new clauses and amendments on written notices, take on board Members’ comments and consider the position.

Angela Smith: We have all heard the tragic tales of those who have been injured or even killed by dogs that are out of control, and the issue is of growing concern to the public. I am therefore glad at least to see that the Government are prepared to do something to tackle the problem.
	The cases that have stuck out in the debate that has taken place over the past few years relate to children such as John Paul Massey, from Liverpool, who died three or four years ago; the girl from Chingford who was attacked in the park and nearly lost part of her ear because of an attack by a dog that was running free, unrestrained by its owner; and Jade Anderson, who died recently and about whom we have heard today. There was also the case of Keith Davies, the postman in Cambridgeshire who was attacked in a cul-de-sac by two Rottweilers that had escaped from behind the gates of a private residence, and who nearly lost an arm. It was saved only through the skilful intervention of surgeons. Paul Coleman, the Sheffield postman who got me involved in this campaign, nearly lost his leg as a result of an attack on the street where I used to live by a dog that was roaming free on the public highway.
	All those cases indicate to me that enough is enough. We spend £9.5 million a year on NHS costs alone to deal with the injuries inflicted on human beings by dogs that are out of control, and that is before considering the costs incurred by the police and other bodies in dealing with the issue. Any progress, however slight, is therefore welcome. I particularly welcome the Government’s decision to extend the law to private property. The onus will now be on owners to exercise responsible control of their dogs at all times, which will be welcomed not just by postal workers but by other delivery workers, health visitors, doctors, party members canvassing at election times and a whole range of other people. That really important safeguard will be more than welcome, because 6,000 postal workers a year alone are injured as a result of attacks on private property.
	I believe that a strengthening of the defence must be built into the proposed legislation. The Bill currently includes the defence of general household protection, but amendment 142 would strengthen the defences given to householders who do their utmost to ensure they keep their dogs under reasonable control. It is my contention, and that of bodies such as the RSPCA, that the current defence does not do enough to protect householders who do their best to keep their dogs under control at all times. We can never legislate for all possibilities, and it is important that we include the best possible defences in the Bill to ensure that householders do not, for example, adopt the habit of keeping dogs imprisoned in the house for most of the day because they have
	visitors. That would be unreasonable, but the Bill as currently drafted could make dog owners feel vulnerable to the proposed legislation, and therefore adopt those unfortunate welfare standards. Amendment 142 is reasonable and I hope the Minister will take it seriously.
	My general point about the content of the Bill is that we need more than currently exists. What we do have is not necessarily best designed and in many ways is inadequate for encouraging responsible dog ownership and improving the welfare of dogs more generally. We need not only consolidation of the legislation but a comprehensive look at what measures we need for dog control. That position is supported by a grand coalition of charities and trade unions, including the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, the Blue Cross, and Battersea Dogs and Cats Home. The Dogs Trust pointed out that 12 pieces of legislation in statute deal with dog control, but little emphasis is placed on the prevention of attacks and there is little focus on responsible dog ownership.
	We need legislation that deals with dog ownership in the broadest possible sense, which is why I am working with animal welfare charities on a strategy to take a long-term look at what needs to be done, and at how charities work together to improve welfare standards and responsible dog ownership. Once finalised, legislation will inevitably be part of that strategy, focusing not only on dog control by the dog owner but on the breeding and sale of dogs, and the responsibility of all involved in dog welfare, including dog owners.
	The Bill does not tackle that issue holistically or comprehensively, and along with animal welfare charities I remain disappointed that we have not had a dedicated Bill to update the legislation. Community protection notices are a blunt and unwieldy measure, not suited to the task of tackling irresponsible dog ownership. As indicated by the changes in new clause 17, the Bill contains no power to issue notices instantly so as to get on top of a dog that is potentially dangerous or out of control as soon as the situation occurs. In some cases, inevitably, the authorities will wait until an attack has been committed before issuing a notice, because they will not feel they should intervene and go through the unwieldy procedure to get a written notice before they can make that move. I do not believe that the Bill tackles those issues. New clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), contains the important requirement that an owner whose dog is potentially out of control should be made to engage in training and behaviour courses related to their ownership of the dog, and in that sense the new clause is helpful.
	New clause 17 provides for a bespoke community protection notice modelled on the dog control notices recommended by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Guidance has already been issued on community protection notices and the measures in the Bill, but so far that guidance is long and difficult to interpret, and much of the support offered is found in the annexes to the guidance, not the guidance itself. As far as animal welfare charities are concerned, there will be an issue about the interpretation of that guidance, and a risk that animal welfare standards will be compromised as a result of the way it has been drafted. The guidance has not been produced properly in consultation with animal welfare charities.
	Finally—you have been patient, Mr Deputy Speaker—I will refer quickly to the new clauses that relate to section 1 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Clearly, section 1 on breed-specific legislation is not working. In a consultation run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on that Act and the measures before us today, 71% of those consulted thought that the breed-specific section of that Act should be repealed because it is not working. It costs a tremendous amount of money to kennel dogs seized under section 1 of the Act, with an annual cost over the past three financial years of £2.6 million for the Metropolitan police alone.
	The new clauses relate to the need to ensure that a time limit is imposed on the courts regarding how long a banned-breed dog can be held before the issue of whether it should be exempt from the legislation is dealt with, to ensure that animal welfare standards are not compromised. That is critical. There should also be the power to rehome dogs that are fit for exemption but have nowhere to go. The only other choice available to animal welfare charities at the moment is euthanasia, which is not good enough. It is the deed not the breed, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that important issue, which I know the Metropolitan police, as well as animal charities such as the RSPCA, are keen to see dealt with.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will not impose a time limit, but we must finish by 4.30 pm and we need 10 minutes for the Minister. I will try to get everybody in, but can we try to stick to five minutes wherever possible?

Tracey Crouch: I rise to address amendment 133 tabled in my name, which looks specifically at extending the Bill to include protected animals. I tabled a similar amendment—slightly differently worded—in Committee, and it has been redrafted by animal welfare charities for consideration today. The amendment is intended to be limited in scope, and would not capture a genuine, accidental attack by a dog on a protected animal—that was one concern raised in Committee. For example, some dogs chase cats or other small animals, and that would not be caught by the amendment, which refers specifically to attacks.
	From previous discussions in Committee we know there has been an increase in attacks on protected animals. Charities, law enforcement agencies and the general public are concerned about the increase, yet we do not have a public record of the number of attacks and must rely on press reports. We know that there have been 66 reports of attacks—mostly fatal—on cats, including one last week, when the death of Caspar, which was devastating for the family involved, was reported in the Bolton News.
	The problem is genuine for people who love their pets—it is incredibly important to them. My proposal is designed to deal not only with dog-chasing-cat events; attacks are often aggravated. The argument in Committee was that the current legislation deals with the problem, but some animal welfare charities beg to differ. For example, it is true that the RSPCA has used section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 on occasion to prosecute
	following dog attacks on other animals, but there is often incitement by the animal’s keeper or a history of other attacks. It can therefore be difficult to obtain information or prove a case, which means that section 4 is not a straightforward mechanism for prosecution.
	We discussed the Dogs Act 1871 in Committee. It is true that the Act can be used for attacks on protected animals, but it is limited in scope and application in the case of one-off incidents. The current legislation is not conducive to early intervention or a preventive approach, or to dealing with less severe problems. We therefore need to look at the Act again.
	There has been an increase in the number of attacks on horses, which I mentioned in Committee on behalf of the British Horse Society. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953 is applicable, but, under that Act, the attack must take place on agricultural land for an offence to be committed. Horses on bridleways are therefore not included. It is also not clear whether the Act is applicable when attacks take place on private property—it depends whether land is considered grazing land.
	Animal welfare charities do not believe that the current legislation is sufficient, which is why I have felt compelled to table amendment 133 again on Report. I believe that that will send a strong message to the other place that many people—not just scrutinisers of legislation, but those who love their companion animals—are concerned.
	Briefly, on dog control notices and community protection notices, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) was right to indicate that I said in Committee that there was a manifesto commitment. I stand by that commitment, and the Government have gone a long way to address the problems with dog control notices. Tellingly, organisations such as the Dogs Trust have made it clear that they are assured that the principle of DCNs could be applied within a CPN. However, the Dogs Trust has said—I am sympathetic to this—that the draft guidance on CPN enforcement is vague, particularly with regard to application. The Minister therefore needs to reassure the House, the charities that have been in touch with hon. Members on DCNs, and trade unions such as the Communication Workers Union, which provided an excellent briefing in advance of the debate, that CPNs will do as much if not more than DCNs. It is important that we send a clear message that we take the problem seriously.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is not in his place to speak to the amendments he has tabled, but they are interesting and worthy of consideration, specifically on exemptions—for example, should a person who is the victim of an attack and whose dog then attacks the other person be liable? I am not suggesting that the Minister should accept all the exemptions proposed by my hon. Friend, but I urge him to consider them in a meaningful way.
	This is an incredibly important issue and one that drives a great deal of emotion and passion, not only among victims of attacks but among those who care very much about their companion animals. The fact is that the dangerous dogs and animal welfare legislation is incredibly complex. I am not convinced that the Bill simplifies it in any way, shape or form, but I hope the Minister acts on the concerns with regard to protected animals.

Ann Coffey: I shall speak to new clause 18, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Rightly, there is a lot of concern about serious injury and death caused by aggressive dogs, and I support the measures proposed by my hon. Friends to tighten the current criminal law and introduce stricter penalties.
	New clause 18 deals with a different situation—it is a simple preventive measure to stop injuries to many people who, every year, post millions of bits of paper through letterboxes. It is not unknown for dogs to regard fingers put through letterboxes as curiosities and fair game for fastening their teeth on. Some dogs are aggressive, but others might simply believe they are being playful. The thought of a dog hurtling itself at a letterbox might conjure up visions of an hilarious scene from a sitcom, but for the real-life recipient, it can be traumatic and painful. People can sustain injuries ranging from bite marks and minor bruising to fingers or nerves being severed, causing long-term injury. Some years ago, I had to take my constituency assistant to accident and emergency for a serious injury to her hand sustained while leafleting.
	The amendment requires householders who keep a dog in their house to put up a wire mesh guard around their letterbox where there is a reasonable probability that, either through aggression or playfulness, it could go for somebody’s hand. I am not saying that every dog owner must rush out and buy a wire guard—if they have a good dog there is no need to worry. However, if there is a chance that their dog might jump up and, for whatever reason, bite someone through the letterbox, it would be up to them to take responsibility to prevent accidents and put in a simple wire guard.

Kelvin Hopkins: I strongly support what my hon. Friend is saying. While delivering leaflets during the previous general election campaign, I was bitten by a dog. It took an hour out of my life to have a tetanus injection at the hospital.

Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure his experience is shared by a lot of hon. Members.
	If dog owners fail to comply with the requirement and there is an incident, the person bitten would be entitled to take a civil court action against them. By this simple measure, I believe that many injuries could be averted every year, and it has the added advantage of protecting householders from the hostility generated if their dog bites someone, particularly if that happens to be a child.
	I understand that there may not be much public sympathy for politicians who get bitten by dogs, but this is not simply a problem for politicians. Many people push leaflets and letters through doors, including: postmen and women; newspaper boys and girls; people starting up new businesses or advertising pizza and other fast food services; neighbours posting Christmas and birthday cards; and people posting leaflets advertising community events.
	I support the other amendments that have been tabled that aim to change criminal law, to make owners manage their dogs better and to put stricter penalties in place. However, my amendment is designed with safety, not the criminal law, in mind and I hope the Government
	will feel able to accept it. If they do not, I hope they will include the proposal in any future consultation.

Richard Fuller: I rise to speak to amendments 140 and 141 in my name, which would increase the maximum sentence to 14 years for owners of an out-of-control dog that kills or injures a person or assistance dog. I am happy that the Government responded to the requests of the Committee and conducted a consultation over the summer. However, I am disappointed that the results are not available.
	People have the right to see their representatives debate fully and vote on what sentences they feel are appropriate to be imposed on the owners of out-of-control dogs. Those people include the constituents of the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), who has been an outstanding campaigner on behalf of her constituents and the victims of out-of-control dogs across the country. They include the families who have lost loved ones over the years, as hon. Members have mentioned in their speeches, and the 13-year-old boy who was attacked in Bradford a couple of months ago. As reported by the Daily Mail, he suffered a 10-minute attack which ended with the young boy saying, “I’m going to die, I’m going to die.” These people have the right to see us debate how we intend to increase sentences.
	The Communication Workers Union has a lot on its plate these days, but like any good union it is thinking first and foremost about the safety and well-being of its members. Five thousand postal workers are attacked each year by dogs. They have the right to have the House debate the right sentence. It is important for the Minister to understand that the CWU supports a 14-year sentence for the killing of a person by an out-of-control dog. The police also have a right to see us debate and vote on this issue today. In their evidence to the Committee, they raised the total and utter inadequacy of the current legislation in dealing with the important and increasing problem of attacks by out-of-control dogs. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s comments. I do not want to hear any flim-flam from him about how he is not sure where this is going and how we should just trust the Government to get it right.

Jim Fitzpatrick: rose—

Richard Fuller: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way, because others want to get in.
	I believe that 14 years is the right maximum penalty. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for saying that, in many ways, it is equivalent to the maximum penalty imposed for dangerous driving. I believe that 14 years would send a strong message that owners must now take responsibility, and not just assume that it lies with the dog, and to judges, who today, even with the inadequate maximum penalty available, are not handing out very significant sentences when they should.
	I want us to provide reassurance that this would be a maximum penalty, not a mandatory penalty, and that we are not asking people to lock up their dogs, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) mentioned; we have to get the balance right. I will listen to the Minister, who is casting a fresh set of
	eyes on this, but let us not forget that at the moment the dog gets a death penalty, but the owner walks away pretty much scot-free. That is not responsible. The Government need to be responsible today and say what they intend to do.

Julie Hilling: I want to speak specifically to new clause 6, other new clauses in my name and some of the amendments.
	The House will be aware of the tragedy that occurred in my constituency on 26 March, when 14-year-old Jade Lomas-Anderson was killed by four out-of-control dogs in the house of a friend where she was staying overnight. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) has paid tribute to Jade’s dad and his friend Royston Brett, who cycled from Atherton to Westminster over the weekend to add their voice to those calling for the legislation to be strengthened in this area.
	By all accounts, Jade was a smashing girl, full of life, kind to everyone and a good friend to many. When her parents were asked what Jade would have thought about their campaign for justice, they answered that she would have been the first to campaign, as she was such a caring girl. Her life was cut tragically short, but because of shortcomings in current legislation, no one can be held accountable. The tragedy has had a profound effect, not only on Jade’s mum and dad, Shirley and Michael, and her immediate family, but on the whole community of Atherton.
	Jade’s parents have bravely led a campaign supported by the community and by Wigan council to ensure that no other family suffers like they have. As Michael says, this is a problem of epidemic proportions. According to the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals, 1 million dogs have displayed dangerous behaviour towards people and animals in the past year. About 250,000 attacks are made by dogs each year and 12 postal workers will have been attacked by dogs today. The cost to the NHS and taxpayers is about £9.5 million. According to my figures, more than 6,000 people are hospitalised each year, many of whom will have received life-changing injuries, although my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North said the number was higher. There have been 16 deaths since 2005 and I cannot even say that Jade was the last person to die, because in May 79-year-old Clifford Clarke was killed in Liverpool. In the area around Hag Fold, where Jade was killed, I know of three serious attacks since March. It is endless.
	I am pleased that the Government are taking the issue seriously and that people could now be prosecuted for attacks on private property, and I sincerely hope that they will bring forward proposals to increase the penalties when the Bill goes to the other place, in the way that the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) just described. I still believe, however, that they are missing a trick by ignoring the call from all the dog charities, the CWU, vets, nurses and the police to introduce straightforward legislation on dog control notices. I am sure that they believe their proposals will tackle this issue, but when all the dog charities and other vested interests are telling them they have got it wrong, they should listen. Fears that the Government’s proposals are too bureaucratic; that there would have to be more than one incident; that they would not apply if the dog
	had already been brought under control; and that they would not tackle the problem of dogs first becoming dangerously out of control must be taken seriously and be addressed either today or when the Bill goes to the other place. I hope that the Government see sense today and accept new clause 3.
	Let me move on to new clause 6. I believe that the issue of having too many dogs in a household should be tackled as part of dog control notices. I wish I could talk in detail about the dogs that killed Jade, but unfortunately I cannot because the dogs’ owner still awaits sentence on dog cruelty charges. This demonstrates well how dog welfare and community safety are closely linked. For that reason, I will have to speak in the abstract.
	First, it is well documented that dogs will act in packs and that unless they are well trained, well socialised and kept under control, they will act together to the detriment of the community.
	Far too many people do not think through what sort of dog they should have in their household. Are there children? Do they have time to exercise the dogs? How much room do they have? Can they afford to keep and feed the dogs and get them veterinary treatment? Should they get small or big dogs? These questions are not even considered by far too many people when they purchase their puppy. Clearly, then, we need better education. What happens when people make the wrong choice? I believe, as do Jade’s parents, that there should be the ability to take quick and immediate action to instruct an owner to reduce the number of dogs they have. The number of dogs people have is not a problem only for community safety.

Angie Bray: What the hon. Lady says about the number of animals sometimes kept in the home is extremely important. On a lot of estates, it is the number of animals that often leads to a lack of control. Does she agree that one of the most important ways of trying to tackle the problem is to get local authorities to engage with housing tenancies and use the management of those tenancies to control the number of dogs in houses and perhaps to say that the top of a tall building, for example, is entirely unsuitable for keeping pets?

Julie Hilling: I want to say more about that. I agree with the hon. Lady, but the issue does not apply only to social housing, which is why we need legislative change so that the problem of people having too many dogs can be tackled wherever somebody lives. She is right that we need to do more for people in social housing and other rented properties.
	The number of dogs creates a problem not just in relation to community safety. A recent event was organised on Hag Fold estate by Wigan council to micro-chip dogs and promote responsible ownership as part of the Jade campaign. Two volunteers, Councillor Karen Aldred and the wonderful local resident Sandi Lucas, went knocking on doors to try to find dog owners to encourage them to attend the event. When they knocked on one door, they were told, “Well, I haven’t got any dogs, but go over there because the owner has loads of dogs and is creating mayhem in the community”. That owner had seven dogs in a small house, creating noise, unpleasant
	smells and making life a misery for the neighbours. I am working with Wigan and Leigh Housing on tenancy clauses for dog ownership, but as I said, the issue is not confined to social housing; we need simple remedies for all.
	The new clause does not specify how many dogs should be in a household because I am not trying to restrict the responsible ownership of dogs. Frankly, if someone lives on a country estate with vast grounds, they can have as many dogs as they want, as long as they do not cause danger or disturbance to anyone else. I hope that the Government will listen to calls from communities to give them the powers they need for people to live peaceful and safe lives.
	Let me touch briefly on the issue of breeding dogs. We know that a strong contributory factor to dogs becoming out of control is how they are socialised in the first few weeks of their lives—whether, for example, they are taken away from their mother too soon or are appropriately socialised with other dogs and people or are sold to people who know how to train and look after them. This may be an issue for the urgently needed dog welfare and control Act, which I shall continue to press the Government to introduce because, whatever the results of these provisions, we still need holistic legislation to deal with those issues.
	Finally, I want to press the Government to extend the legislation to cover attacks on all protected animals. Attacking other animals is a sign that dogs are becoming dangerously out of control and therefore a threat to people. Why should a responsible pet owner have to face the trauma of an attack and the related veterinary expenses and heartache? Many owners are actually injured while trying to protect their beloved pets, such as the woman in Atherton who, just two weeks ago, lost part of her finger when she picked up her dog to protect it from a ferocious dog.
	There is much in the Bill to be welcomed, but it does not go far enough. I ask the Government to look again and to support our new clauses and amendments to strengthen the Bill. Jade, her parents and all the other victims of dog attacks deserve no less.

Martin Horwood: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling). I am sure that she spoke for the whole House in relation to the case of poor Jade Anderson. Sadly, that is just the latest and most tragic example of what the hon. Lady rightly described as an epidemic of dog attacks which are hospitalising thousands, and injuring thousands of postal workers and others. I am afraid that there have been many distressing cases in my own constituency, which led me to become involved in what has been quite a long campaign. I pay tribute to, in particular, the hon. Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) and for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray), both of whom have campaigned very persistently.
	For many years it seemed as if the Government were not budging at all on the issue, so it is enormously welcome that we are considering it in the context of this Bill, and that the Government are taking action. Their action is being taken step by step—it is rather gradualist—and that may be frustrating for some of us, but we should not make the best the enemy of the good. We should recognise the positive steps that are being taken
	in the Bill, not least in the context of the Government’s earlier action in setting a timetable for the introduction of universal microchipping. That will help us to identify the real culprits, who—as many Members have pointed out—are irresponsible dog owners as much as the dogs themselves, some of which are just more victims of this phenomenon.
	The hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and others have made a strong case for dog control orders. I have been sympathetic to that idea for many years, but I should be content if we could achieve the same outcome by other means. I understand the Government’s position; I realise that their main purpose is to simplify and rationalise antisocial behaviour legislation without sacrificing flexibility. The Bill underlines the important point that the issue of dangerous dogs is inextricably linked with that of human antisocial behaviour. If we can tackle one by tackling the other, I shall be satisfied, even if the legislation does not include the actual words “dog control order”.
	One of the most important provisions involves the extension of liability for dangerous dogs to private property. Liberty has expressed some concern about the so-called “bite a burglar” provisions, and I think that Ministers need to consider those carefully. Our two contradictory instincts are to say, quite rightly, that burglars who enter other people’s properties with malicious intent should do so entirely at their own risk, and to support the extension to private property of liability for the dangerous behaviour of animals. Both are worthy instincts, and resolving that conflict will be a difficult task for Ministers. I speak as the brother of a postal worker who is very keen for the Bill to proceed.

Mark Spencer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Martin Horwood: I am sorry, but I will not, because of the time.
	Another important provision, which has not been mentioned much in the debate so far, is clause 99, which begins the necessary shift from breed to deed. It requires a court to establish whether a dog is
	“a danger to public safety”,
	given
	“the temperament of the dog and its past behaviour”,
	and to establish whether the dog’s owner is a “fit and proper person” to own a dog. I agree with the criticism by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge of the rather strange list of obscure breeds, which I am not sure that most police forces would recognise even if they came across them. I do not know whether we will eventually abolish that list, but I certainly think it significant that the Bill is embarking on that shift towards tackling deed and behaviour rather than just breed.
	I have some sympathy for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller). They seek tougher sentencing, underlining the fact that in many instances dogs are used as lethal weapons, and that we should see that in the context of the responsibility of their owners. I also have some sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), as, I think, will legions of Liberal Democrat “Focus” deliverers. My constituent Councillor Rob Reid provided me with a paddle which I now use to push
	leaflets through letter boxes. A deliverer can take some responsible action. The paddle now bears a good many teeth marks, which could have been on my fingers. Councillor Reid made it by cutting up old “Yes to the alternative vote” campaign placards, which is probably one of the lesser but more positive outcomes of that campaign.

Angela Smith: Is it not true that, if we legislate specifically to require dog owners to put guards on their letter boxes, we will run the danger of neglecting the other risks that people face when they go on to private property, such as dogs running free in back gardens? Is it not the case that there are a number of possibilities in terms of dog attacks once someone passes the boundary of the gate?

Martin Horwood: It is important that the Government consult carefully on all these things. We do not want to intrude too much into the realm of private property and what people are allowed to do with their dogs in their property, but the point that the hon. Lady makes is well made.
	I ask the Minister to consider carefully the campaign by Naturewatch, which is based in my constituency and led me to table early-day motion 412 to address the issues of irresponsible breeders and the need to regulate the advertising and selling of pets. That could be the next important step that the Government take in their rather gradualist approach to the issue. In many ways, that is one of the root causes of the phenomenon of dangerous and trophy dogs and dogs used as weapons.
	For now, however, we should congratulate the Government on taking some important steps to tackle the issue. The steps we are voting on today will help to save lives. They will potentially save the lives of children like poor Jade Anderson and the lives of adults. They will certainly save the lives of pets. Those steps are overwhelmingly to be welcomed.

Luciana Berger: In November four years ago, my constituent, John Paul Massey, was killed by a dog in Wavertree. He was four. It happened during the run-up to the general election. I remember the impact that his death had not only on his family and their friends but on the wider community. To this day, I have people who come to talk to me about the experience of that happening in our community and how it has impacted on them, even though they may just have been a neighbour or someone who lived in a neighbouring street. It is not just John Paul Massey who tragically lost his life. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned many other victims. One life lost because of a dog is one life too many. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that in his response.
	I am going to echo many of the comments made by hon. Friends and Members on the Government Benches. I notice that there are people present who have been long-standing campaigners on the issue for far longer than I have following my election in May 2010. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) for the hard work that she has done for so many more years than I have on the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West
	(Julie Hilling) has been affected in more recent times. We have heard the worst examples and seen evidence in newspapers and on television of the most tragic injuries and of people who are permanently disfigured. As we have heard, every year, thousands of people are hospitalised. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are attacked by a dog and may not present themselves to the NHS. For many of those people, there are long-term psychological consequences. For people on the front line who go into homes, be they social workers, BT workers, meter readers or energy company staff, such attacks can have a long-term impact on their ability to work.
	As we have heard, the attacks come at a great cost. The estimates that we have are very conservative. There is a cost of £10 million a year to the NHS. That should cause any Government concern. Equally, as the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr Spencer) said, people who are visually impaired will be affected if their guide dog is attacked. I do not think that enough of us know—I learned this only recently—that it costs £50,000 to train and look after a guide dog over its lifetime. That is all charitable money. If a guide dog is attacked by a dog, not only will there be a cost and long-term consequences for the guide dog, but the owner, who has spent time bonding with the guide dog and has depended on it, will no longer have a friend. That can also have long-term consequences.
	I support new clause 3, which is in my name and that of many hon. Friends, because I share the criticism by the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and many hon. Members on both sides of the House. Although I welcome what the Government have done on the issue, the clear message that I have heard from professionals in the field is that we should prevent dog attacks from happening in the first place.
	I have listened very closely to the contributions of Members on both sides of the House, in particular those on the Government Benches who spoke in support of what the Government have come forward with thus far. I have also looked very closely at the community protection notices and I have listened to the professionals who know far better than I do how this will operate in practice, and I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s response, too, but I have strong concerns. As it stands, CPNs are very bureaucratic and practitioners will need a lot of time and resource to implement them. They will not sufficiently address dog behaviour and welfare. That is, essentially, what all of us here are talking about today. There are also concerns that the CPN will come too late, because the dog owner must be served with a written warning before they can be issued with a CPN.
	I support dog control notices as I believe they would increase the profile of the issues and awareness of them among the target audience. They would also serve to impress upon enforcers the need to ensure expertise among those authorised to issue notices. We have not spoken about what a DCN would specifically do. It would place a responsibility on an owner to undertake requirements tailored to the need of the individual and their dog. That could be something as simple as the use of a lead or a muzzle at an appropriate time, or the maintenance of a dog-proof fence, or a request to undertake some training. I have attended events the Dogs Trust puts on for free, so I have met many people
	who love their pet but do not have the skills or expertise to best look after it. A DCN could address that very well.
	The focus of a DCN is on education and supporting the individual, rather than being punitive to the owner or dog. I urge the Minister to think very seriously about this issue because we have a problem in this country. We see it in communities all the time, and not just in inner-city urban communities, but in rural communities too. We need something that is going to deal with dog attacks effectively, so we never again open a newspaper or switch on our TV and learn of somebody tragically being maimed or losing their life because of a dog.
	I know the Minister is new in his post, and I urge him to listen to the professionals, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Dogs Trust, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and others, and also to the Communication Workers Union, which represents thousands of postmen and women who deliver our mail every day, and up to 20 of whom are attacked just delivering our post. I ask the Minister to consider the new clause again. If the Government are not going to support it today, I urge them to consider it in the other place, because we need serious action to prevent dog attacks in the first place.

Robert Syms: I welcome what the Government are doing. It is quite brave. Dealing with any topic such as this one fuels great passions. All of us love dogs, but those of us who are parents feel slight fear when we see an unruly dog in a playground or somewhere else.
	We have to strike a proper balance. The whole thrust of what the Government are doing in this area is to simplify and make flexible antisocial behaviour legislation so it can be more easily used. Therefore I urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, although I accept they have been tabled for understandable and strong reasons, and the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) certainly made a very good contribution. We ought to go forward with what is being proposed, which is CPNs, and see whether they deliver what the Government have assured us they will.
	There are DPNs in Scotland and Northern Ireland and the Government have looked at them and concluded they would rather have CPNs. If devolution is to mean anything, it must allow Scotland and Northern Ireland to go their own way and the rest of the United Kingdom to go a different way if it perceives that is a better way to deal with the problem.

Jim Shannon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Syms: No.
	We all know the problem is irresponsible dog owners, and the Government’s raft of proposed legislation ought to be able to deal with that effectively. I therefore urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, but I also urge him to give special attention to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) said. The Committee came up with some refreshing ideas. Some of the Back-Bench Members had meetings with Ministers, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister Lord de Mauley. The refreshing thing was that they were prepared to look at the issue of the tariff and sentencing. A consultation
	took place in the summer, and although my hon. Friend is disappointed that it has not yet been published and any changes will be made in the House of Lords, by Whitehall standards this is the speed of light: we have a Bill, we meet a Minister, the Minister undertakes to have a consultation, we have the consultation and in a matter of weeks something will come back to the other place. That is pretty good, so I welcome what the DEFRA officials and the Minister have said.

Richard Fuller: I join my hon. Friend in commending Lord de Mauley for his speed in DEFRA. We are just looking for the same speed of reaction from the Home Office.

Robert Syms: Absolutely. Progress has been made and the Government listened to our Committee debates. I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who mentioned cats, did not mention Mungo and Basil, as they got a mention in Committee. It was an interesting Committee and things were well debated. We made proposals that will improve the Bill. I urge the Minister to resist most of the amendments, but to consider the amendment to do with the tariff, which needs to be given serious consideration.
	To go back to my first point, the Bill is about simplifying things and making them more flexible, and I urge the Minister to resist more complicated legislation. Let us get on with the job and let us make it easier for legislators. This is a good Bill, extending the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to private property and protecting assistance dogs. It contains a lot of good things and if we can get the tariff up as well, it will be a result for those who served on the Committee and for this House.

John Healey: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms) and it was good to hear him speaking in the House, after a period in the Whips on the Front Bench, although what he had to say was still a little too loyal for my taste.
	I welcome clause 98 and the extension of the offence of allowing a dog to cause injury or the fear of injury to all places, including all private property. That is long awaited and closes a significant loophole in the law. Ministers have simply been much to slow to make this change. Today, however, particularly with new clause 3, the new Minister has the opportunity to act ahead of a serious and growing problem, instead of just giving a long-delayed response to a problem, as we have seen so far. I am talking about the introduction of dog control notices.
	We know that thousands of victims are injured and hospitalised each year as a result of dog attacks. We know that the number of owners sentenced for offences related to dangerous dogs has increased by more than one third since 2009. Just in South Yorkshire the police tell me that in the past year they have responded to 464 dog attack incidents, and that just in 2013 they have so far taken out 26 court cases pursuing prosecution against those owners.
	The latest case reported to me was that of Rebecca Lowman of Goldthorpe, who was attacked and badly injured in the arm and leg last month when she was defending a woman who was being attacked by her own dog in her own house. While Becky was still in hospital,
	I sat down with her husband John, who was very upset by Becky’s injuries and very angry that the police had no ability to act on that dog because the attack took place in that private house.
	Since I started campaigning on this issue in the past few weeks, a lot of people have contacted me, including Norma Saunders, who told me that she knows someone who was a victim of a dog attack. She said:
	“After the dog attacked several times, our community felt terrorized. I did not let my little boy play in the garden & I did not walk to the shops, but the authorities were not interested.”
	I pay tribute to Hallam FM in South Yorkshire, which has taken up this campaign, aired the problems and given listeners the chance to give their experiences over the past week. A couple have phoned in with very powerful points. One said that the law must be changed:
	“I was mauled by an American Pitt bull crossed with a Bull mastiff at my friend’s house and as it was in its rightful house nothing could have been done…I have been left with traumatic memories and ugly scars, this dog has not been put down and has in fact bitten someone else”.
	Another caller simply said that we should
	“just do what is definitely necessary to prevent any more horrific and fatal attacks on innocent people and children.”
	The Minister has the chance to do just that this afternoon.
	I urge the Minister, taking advantage of his fresh mandate as a new Minister in a new post, to accept new clause 3. Dog control notices have been legislated for in Scotland for three years and this represents a sensible extension of the scope for local authorities, courts and the police to take action against a person in control of a dog whose behaviour is out of control. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has explained some of the steps and sanctions available to the authorities when a dog control notice is in place.
	Labour has been arguing this case but Ministers have been dragging their feet for three years now. During that time, thousands more have suffered serious and often debilitating injuries. Most dog owners are responsible and their dogs are well behaved, but a minority see dogs as status symbols or even offensive weapons. The Government must go further than this Bill. Closing the loophole in the legislation over attacks on some private property is a sensible step, but one that they have been pushed to take. Let us see Ministers take the next sensible step this afternoon, introduce and accept the principle of dog control notices and help to reverse the rising trend of attacks and to head off some of the attacks we will otherwise definitely see, which will leave adults and children badly scarred, badly injured, badly traumatised and, in some cases, dead.

Edward Leigh: I support the Government’s gradualist and sensible approach and I urge the Minister to resist new clause 3. We all regret and are desperately unhappy about vicious attacks by dogs, particularly on children—although also on anybody else—and if legislation could solve that problem and new clause 3 could deal with it without causing massive potential inconvenience to millions of peaceable people who own dogs, I would be in favour of it. However, like all such amendments, it would probably, sadly, do little to control the vicious people who use dogs as weapons and it could impact severely on millions of ordinary, peaceable dog owners.
	I declare an interest because, like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am a dog owner. My dog, a little border terrier called William, is a lot smaller than yours. I saw yours in the Westminster dog show last year and many people think that your breed of dog is quite powerful, but I know from having witnessed your dog that it is well brought up and peaceable.
	Let us be sensible about this. I know that new clause 3 is well intentioned, but it could have draconian effects. All it states is:
	“Where an authorised officer has reasonable cause to believe that a dog is not under sufficient control”.
	It requires a reasonable belief—that is not probability. We all know that there are disputes between neighbours, or that people have rows with other people. That is such a small bar to get over for an “authorised officer”.

Luciana Berger: rose—

Edward Leigh: I had better not give way, because I do not want Mr Deputy Speaker to set his dogs of war on me. I shall be very brief and will not take any interventions.
	Let me make a simple point. Who is this “authorised officer”? What is this “reasonable cause”? Simply because that officer of the state has some sort of belief, which might have been motivated by other people, the dog might have to be muzzled, neutered or prevented from going in particular places. I am very worried about that.
	I am also very worried about the other amendments. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who was talking about 14-year sentences. It was in the papers last year that somebody had driven their car dangerously and killed somebody while they were looking at their global positioning system device. They did not look out of the window for 18 seconds and they killed a cyclist, and they went to prison for three years. We all think that is ridiculous. Are we really going to send someone to prison for 14 years?
	Let us be honest about it. Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be guard dogs. Even my pathetic little border terrier, William, barks when people come up the garden path. That is what dogs are bred to do. All this nonsense about Liberal party canvassers who are scared of getting their fingers bitten when they put a leaflet through the door—I have delivered thousands of useless Conservative party pamphlets through the door. When I see a dog behind the door, I am delighted not to put the pamphlet through the letterbox. Just show some common sense. Dogs are dogs. We cannot change dogs with legislation.
	New clause 3 is just one extra bit of legislation that will not impact on the people who really cause trouble, but will, as I said, impact on millions of dog owners. We should be calm, take a gradualist approach and support what the Government are doing.

Norman Baker: We have had a good wide-ranging debate. In the time left available to me, I will try as always to address the points that have been raised, but if I am unable to respond to all of them, I will write to the individual Members who have raised points and have not had those addressed as part of my response.
	Let me say first that we are very sympathetic to the calls from many people for an increase in the maximum penalty for a dog attack. The Government agree that
	two years’ imprisonment is not a sufficient penalty for the devastation and damage that a serious dog attack can do. There were over 3,000 responses to the consultation, and although there was strong support for an increased maximum penalty, there was no consensus as to where to set the bar. Given the volume of responses, I regret that it has not been possible for the Department to conclude its consideration of the issue in time to table a Government amendment on Report, but I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) that the Government will table an amendment to increase the maximum penalties for dog attacks when the Bill is in the other place. The response to the consultation on changes will, I can assure the shadow Minister, be published in good time to inform the debates on the issue in the other place.
	The Government amendment will reflect the high public concern that two years is an insufficient penalty for these offences, and the fact that some 16 adults and children have died in dog attacks since 2005, and some 10 assistance dogs are attacked by other dogs every month. As the consultation made clear, we will be looking to distinguish between attacks on people and attacks on assistance dogs. For attacks on people and where a person is killed or seriously injured, I am attracted—perhaps given my former role as a Transport Minister—by the comparison with penalties for causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving. Where a dog attacks an assistance dog, we will be looking at a lower maximum penalty, but one that is higher than the present one that applies.
	I should say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that some people are breeding dogs deliberately to use as weapons. It is under those circumstances that higher penalties would be applicable. I hope that in the light of the reassurances that I have given on this matter, and the commitment that I am giving to a Government amendment, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) will not press his amendments today.
	New clauses 3, 6, 17, 18 and 19 deal with dog control notices, dog number control notices and the requirement for all households with a dog to fit letterbox guards. I understand the intentions of hon. Members who tabled these amendments. There is a genuine need for an additional tool to address poor dog ownership and to enable early action to prevent dog bites and attacks. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who sought to take matters forward with her new clause 18. Every day thousands of postal workers and others, including those who deliver political literature, face uncertainty and apprehension as they approach houses with dogs to deliver mail and so on. The Government believe that such individuals must be able to go about their duties without fear of injury.
	It is paramount for local officers from the police or the local council to have at their disposal the right tools so that they may take action in cases of irresponsible dog ownership. But as was made clear when the issue was raised on Second Reading and again in Committee, the measures in parts 1 to 4 introduce powers that will allow exactly the type of early intervention that the new clauses seek to provide.
	Those measures can address all types of such irresponsible behaviour with a dog, regardless of the specific manifestation. For example, a community protection notice can be served in cases where there are too many dogs in one home—the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling)—where an owner does not have proper control of his or her dog, where a dog strays and in many other scenarios. Those measures are in addition to existing statutory measures, notably offences under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 relating to welfare standards, the law on statutory nuisance and, for commercial dog breeders, any licence requirements.
	I want to reassure Members—this is an important point—that all the requirements they suggest under new clauses 3 and 6, such as muzzling, neutering, microchipping, keeping a dog on a lead, attending training classes, fitting a letterbox guard to the door of a property and seeking expert advice, can be required under a community protection notice. The new clauses, although well intentioned, are simply not necessary. The powers are already there in the Bill. To pick up on a point made by the shadow Minister, that is how the Liberal Democrat and Conservative manifesto commitments are being delivered.

Luciana Berger: Will the Minister acknowledge that, as the legislation is currently drafted, individuals will still require a written warning before they can receive a community protection notice, which will add delays? Who knows what could happen during the intervening period?

Norman Baker: I want to address that point. Only this month the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published a draft practitioners’ manual—it is a draft because we are inviting comments on it—entitled, “Tackling irresponsible dog ownership”. It gives an example on page 15. If a dog is out of control in a park, a written notice can be issued on the spot by the relevant officer who has control in that situation. The owner would then be given a “reasonable time”, which might be just five minutes, to respond. If the dog is not brought under control in that time, the community protection notice can be issued right away. I do not understand why the Opposition think that there could be huge delays in the process, because there could not. It is a simple piece of legislation to make it effective and quick, and that relates to the issues to which attention is rightly being drawn.

Mark Spencer: I am concerned about the term “owner”, because the person in control of the dog in the park might not be the owner, so the “It’s my cousin’s dog” defence could deflect the notice.

Norman Baker: The provision might specify the person in control of the dog, so if I have that wrong I will correct it. I absolutely accept my hon. Friend’s point and will reflect on it.
	The measures in the Bill go further and allow officers to make innovative requirements based on the specifics of the case they are dealing with, for example by requesting that signage be put up to warn visitors to a property of the presence of a dog, or that a letterbox guard be
	fitted. I have genuinely heard nothing during the course of the debate to suggest that there is a gap in what is proposed in the Bill.
	The Local Government Association stated in written evidence to the Public Bill Committee:
	“The LGA remains to be convinced that separate tools are necessary as no details have been provided of the specific gaps in the provisions for the injunctions, community protection notices or public space protection orders that a dog control notice is needed to fill.”
	We all share the objective of trying to do something about this matter, but Opposition Members seem to think that a measure cannot be effective if it does not have the word “dog” in the title, which is simply wrong.

Steve Reed: Will the Minister give way?

Norman Baker: I will give way one more time.

Steve Reed: It is not just the Opposition who are making those points; so too are many experienced organisations, including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the British Veterinary Association, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and this House’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. All of those organisations have more experience in this area than either the Minister or I have, yet he is not taking their views on board.

Norman Baker: The shadow Minister made that point in his opening remarks. I have not been a Home Office Minister for long, but I dealt with dog legislation for many years in opposition, so I think I know what the legislation says. I have given him an absolute assurance that the issues the Opposition are concerned about, as am I, such as microchipping and neutering, could all be dealt with under the community protection notice. I have given the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree an assurance that those matters can be dealt with very quickly. Those are the two points that the Opposition are perfectly correct to pursue, and I have given answers that I had hoped would satisfy them. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As far as I am concerned, the measures they want to deal with the problem that they, and we, have identified are in the Bill.
	Notwithstanding that, I understand the concern that, as Labour Members have said, any dog issues may be lost in the breadth of these measures. However, these powers recognise, first, that antisocial behaviour does not come packaged into distinct areas, and secondly, that what matters is whether it can be dealt with quickly and effectively, which is what the Bill does. The practitioners’ manual from DEFRA is the Government’s attempt to reassure people that these matters will be dealt with properly.

Angie Bray: Does the Minister recognise that sometimes it is not the attacks themselves that cause anxiety but the intimidating nature of some of the dogs that are attached to what I would call dangerous owners? That blights the lives of people trying to use the parks. Just the presence of this intimidating animal with its owner can do some damage.

Norman Baker: I do recognise that. That is a good reason why it is better to have flexible, general legislation rather than specific legislation that then creates loopholes. That is what the Opposition, who are well intentioned, would do if they had their way in the construction of antisocial behaviour legislation.

Angela Smith: Will the Minister give way?

Norman Baker: I must not, because I have lots of people to try to reply to. I am sorry.
	I hope that I have been able to persuade Opposition Members that the approach put forward in the new clause is already provided for in the Bill. If they were minded to press it, I would invite the House to reject it. [Interruption.]
	The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), who is seeking to intervene while I am trying to respond to her points, proposes to reduce the time delay that can take place following the seizure of a suspected section 1 dog, such as a pit bull terrier, before it is examined by expert witnesses for the defence or prosecution to assess whether it is a prohibited dog. I understand her concerns about the impact that such delays can have on the welfare of dogs. That is why we are committed to bringing forward regulations next year to make it clear that when the police seize a suspected prohibited dog they will not be required to kennel it, but need do so only where they are satisfied that the situation of dog and owner do not present a risk to public safety. It is right to give the police this discretion, and that is the aim that we intend to take forward. It will be a condition of release, if release occurs, that the owner consents to the dog being muzzled and on a lead in public, as well as being microchipped and neutered before it can be released back to the owner. This is to ensure public safety and to prevent breeding from section 1 dogs. On that basis, we do not consider the hon. Lady’s new clause 29 to be necessary.
	I now want to deal with the amendments eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), which seek to extend the offence in section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 to cover incidents where a dog injures or kills a protected animal. I entirely understand and sympathise with her reason for proposing that measure. She listed some of the existing legislation, which does have an effect and can be used in certain circumstances, including the Animal Welfare Act 2006, the Animals Act 1971, the Dogs Act 1871, and the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953. It is rather unfortunate that the Criminal Damage Act 1971 classifies animals as goods or property in this respect.
	I understand the concern of people whose cat is savaged by a dog, but the way forward is to consider other solutions. Instead of more legislation, we want better education for owners, training for dogs, and increased awareness among the public and the authorities who can use the new antisocial behaviour powers to address these incidents and help to prevent them before they happen.
	I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to particular resources in legislation in respect of horses, which she mentioned. The Dangerous Dogs Act would apply in a situation where a dog threatens or attacks a horse and a rider, because the rider is likely to have “reasonable apprehension”
	that the dog will injure them, and therefore an offence would be created. My hon. Friend also referred to the livestock issues that I mentioned earlier. We are keen to make sure that other animals are protected. However, as I said, the general nature of the legislation provides options through, for example, the injunction procedure to see whether there are other avenues that can be taken to deal with dogs that present a danger to the public and, indeed, to other animals.
	On amendment 142, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, I regret that because of the lack of time I will have to write to her with a specific response to the point she raises.
	The actions that this Government are taking in tackling dangerous dogs are absolutely right. Everybody in the House agrees that that needs to happen better than it has done in the past, and I believe the Bill will achieve that. The provisions will enable all the dreadful acts that have been taking place to be tackled in a sensible and effective way.

Steve Reed: I have listened carefully to the Minister, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced and we will press new clause 3 to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 236, Noes 315.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Third Reading

Damian Green: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I take the opportunity to welcome for his last hurrah on this Bill the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), before he moves to the equally exciting field of immigration policy. It is an area that—I say this with some experience—I know he will find life enhancing.
	The Bill has been much improved by the scrutiny of this House. We often beat ourselves up—and are beaten up by people outside—about the level and quality of scrutiny we apply to legislation in this House, but I think the Bill is now in better shape than it was when it entered Committee, and for that I thank hon. Members from across the House. Foremost among the improvements is the insertion of a whole new part of the Bill at the instigation of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), and 67 other right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who supported new clause 5. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the energy and perseverance she has shown in pursuit of her Childhood Lost campaign.
	In 2012-13, well over 1,000 people were convicted in this country of offences relating to child sexual exploitation. It is a horrible and repulsive crime and we owe it to the victims, and to all children, to do all we can to eliminate it. Prosecutions and convictions are essential, but by then, of course, the damage is done—or, as my hon. Friend put it, a childhood has been lost. We must therefore do more to prevent such horrendous crimes from occurring in the first place.
	Civil orders, which help protect the public from individuals whose behaviour means there is a risk that they will sexually abuse or otherwise sexually harm others, play an important part in our prevention strategy.
	Although provision for such orders has been in statute for 10 years, and there are many cases in which they have been used effectively, it is clear that the current regime in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 is too inflexible. Instead of supporting the protection of vulnerable children, it places unreasonable obstacles in the way of keeping them safe. The new sexual harm prevention order and sexual risk order will simplify and strengthen the current powers available to the police, rebalancing the scales of justice in favour of children and vulnerable adults.
	In many respects, the approach we are taking to the reform of civil prevention orders under the Sexual Offences Act mirrors our approach to antisocial behaviour powers, and as in that case, the Bill sweeps away the complex and bureaucratic array of powers that put unnecessary obstacles in the way of front-line professionals taking fast and effective action to protect vulnerable people and communities. With the ASBO, however, there was an additional problem because the existing powers simply do not work. ASBOs can take many months to obtain, and, once secured, most are breached with more than four in 10 breached repeatedly. We need powers that will not only offer fast and immediate protection for those at risk of harm, but drive a change in behaviour and provide a long-term solution.
	In her article in The Independent last month, the hon. Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) bemoaned the fact that the ASBO is “much maligned”. She has recently moved on from the Home Affairs brief, on which I congratulate her, but I put it to her and to her colleagues who remain on the Front Benches that it is also time to move on from the ASBO. The ASBO is maligned for the good reason that it has been ineffective, and the Bill will rightly see the back of it.
	As well as ensuring that front-line professionals have the powers they need, our reforms place the victim at the heart of the response to antisocial behaviour. The community remedy will be enhanced if it is developed locally within a national framework. Out-of-court disposals must be seen to be a fair and effective way of dealing with offending behaviour if they are to have the confidence of the community. To achieve that, each and every one should have a punitive, restorative or rehabilitative element, or a combination of those. I commend my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) for his comments about strengthening the provisions of the Bill to that end. Out-of-court disposals must be used appropriately, and as I have repeatedly said, they should only be used as the first response to low-level offending. When the seriousness of an offence, or the frequency of the offending behaviour, warrants prosecution, prosecution is what should happen.
	Under the Bill, victims of antisocial behaviour will be able to take advantage of the community trigger. No one should have to suffer repeated incidents of antisocial behaviour because the police, local authority or landlord repeatedly fails to respond to the victim’s call for action.
	The community trigger will give victims the power to demand a case review. That case review must assess whether further action is required, and it can result in the relevant authority being required to take appropriate action. That is real accountability. It gives ordinary people real power to compel the authorities to respond in a way that will stop them being victimised.
	After the debate on Report and the House’s clear rejection of new clause 3, I hope we can move on from the debate about dog control notices. Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree on the need for more effective preventive powers to tackle irresponsible dog owners. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has published the draft of a comprehensive practitioners manual that shows how the new antisocial behaviour powers in the Bill can be used to tackle dog-related problems. I put it to the House that the time has come for all parties, including animal welfare groups, the police, local authorities and others, to work together to ensure that the provisions in the Bill deliver the outcomes we all want.

Lady Hermon: The Minister will know very well that responsibility for policing and justice was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2010, but bits of clause 98, on dangerous dogs, appear to apply to Northern Ireland. I do not understand why some bits and pieces apply to Northern Ireland when other bits and pieces do not, but on the bits that apply, what consultation was there with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice and the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which is responsible for dogs?

Damian Green: I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, throughout the passage of the Bill and on many other matters, there has been regular, continuous contact at all levels. I see the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice regularly, and our officials are in contact on detailed matters. We work closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Justice.

Julie Hilling: The Minister says he hopes the charities and so on get behind the Bill. It is not too late for him to reconsider and listen to what they say on how to improve the Bill rather than asking them to support measures that they believe are second best.

Damian Green: I sense the hon. Lady is trying to lure me into a debate she has just had with my hon. Friend the Minister. I heard his speech, in which he replied fully to the points made by her and others. She says it is not too late, but, in practical terms, it is—we have just had a Division and have moved on to Third Reading. [Interruption.] There will indeed be debates in other places.
	The examination and detention of David Miranda at Heathrow airport in August has put a renewed spotlight on the changes we are making in the Bill to the powers in schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Schedule 7 remains a key part of the UK’s border security arrangements and is vital to preserving the safety of the public. I welcome the renewed scrutiny of the provisions. It is right that, as part of his function of reporting on the operation of the Terrorism Acts, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, has decided to investigate and report on the exercise of the powers in Mr Miranda’s case. The Government will carefully consider his report when it is received.

Julian Huppert: We had a slightly truncated debate on that earlier. The Home Secretary has rightly expressed concern about the use of stop and search—it disproportionately affects the ethnic minority population—
	and taken steps to deal with it. Given that a huge proportion of people who are stopped under schedule 7 are ethnic minorities—it is massively disproportionate—does the Minister agree that similar actions should be taken on schedule 7 stops?

Damian Green: The sensible thing to do is to wait for Mr Anderson’s report and then decide what changes, if any, are needed. Let us look at the evidence and then decide what changes are necessary, because the police need the power to stop, question and, when necessary, detain and search people travelling through airports and ports if they are to be able to determine whether an individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism. That power is essential to the prevention of terrorism because it enables the police to detect and disrupt individuals who might be travelling for the purposes of planning, financing and training for terrorist attacks.
	The amendments to schedule 7 are in line with the Government’s continuing commitment to ensure that respect for individual freedoms is balanced appropriately and carefully against the need to reduce the threat of terrorism to the British public and British interests overseas. I have no doubt that the other place will want to examine the provisions particularly closely, including in the light of Mr Anderson’s report, but we should wait until we have all had the opportunity to look at the report before rushing to make a judgment on whether we have the balance right.
	I should say a few words about the much expanded part 11, which deals with extradition. The ability to extradite people to and from this country is an important component of our criminal justice system. Those who commit serious crimes should not be able to evade justice by crossing international borders to escape arrest. We owe it to the victims of crime to ensure that there are efficient and effective arrangements in place to prevent justice being denied in that way.

Nick de Bois: The Minister says that the Bill was improved in Committee and on the Floor of the House. While I am sure that that is the case for most of the Bill, he is well aware that we did not have the opportunity to scrutinise Government new clauses on extradition, or discuss the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and 28 other hon. Members from across the House. How confident is the Minister that we are providing protections that British citizens have lacked in the past?

Damian Green: I am conscious of my hon. Friend’s particular constituency interest, which he has pursued diligently. I am sure that he and I agree that our extradition arrangements need to be fair and proportionate. It is a big step to extradite a person from one country to another. The impact on family life and employment will be far greater than in cases where a person is prosecuted in his or her own country of residence. We should not, therefore, be hoovering up British residents and dispatching them to all corners of Europe to spend months in prison awaiting trial for minor offences. I am sure he would agree with that. That is why in July I recommended to the House that the United Kingdom opt back into the European arrest warrant, but only on condition that we first rectify a number of serious weaknesses in the way it has operated. That is what we are now doing.
	Part 11 introduces a new proportionality bar to extradition to prevent people being extradited for trivial offences. It also introduces a new bar to extradition where the prosecuting authorities in the requesting state have not yet taken a decision to charge and try the accused. That will stop extradited persons languishing in a foreign jail while an investigation takes place. We will amend the Extradition Act 2003 so that a British citizen cannot be extradited for conduct that is not a crime in this country.
	These are all important new safeguards that will help to ensure that our extradition arrangements with other EU member states are fair both to the victims of crime and the accused. They are not particularly difficult or onerous. They could and should have been included in the Extradition Act 2003. To leave them out was a mistake, which is being rectified by this Government.
	This is a significant piece of legislation, one much enhanced as it has made its way through the House. It will help us to cut crime further, to protect the public and to extend the modernisation of the police. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Hanson: I thank the Minister for thanking me for my service as shadow spokesperson on police. It is a privilege to move on to another shadow Home Office role. He and I appear to have job swapped in the course of our time on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero), who has now joined the shadow Cabinet, for her work on the Bill. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for Croydon North (Mr Reed) and for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who joined the shadow Home Office team and worked on the Bill in the past two days. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) for her work on Report. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for his efforts in Committee.
	I thank the Minister for his consideration during the Bill’s progress and the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for his consideration over the last couple of days. I also thank the former Ministers, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), and, in particular, the hon. Member for Poole (Mr Syms), whom I think, in a challenging Committee full of very different views, did his job with integrity; I personally was sorry to see him leave his post in the recent reshuffle. Members of the Committee, some of whom are present today, know that it was an interesting and exciting time, and I thank them also.
	Third Reading is about what is in a Bill, not what might have been, and with that in mind, I will first welcome those aspects of the Bill with which the Opposition agree. We welcome the instigation of the College of Policing, which is an opportunity to provide training and investment and to set standards. We perhaps want to see it develop in different ways from the Government, but it is a positive and forward-looking initiative, and I wish both the chair and the chief officer well in their task.
	I welcome the measures on firearms and the intent to supply, which, as I mentioned in Committee, had their genesis even before the last general election. These important provisions will help to reduce the supply of guns, and therefore deaths and criminality.
	I welcome the extension of the role of the Independent Police Complaints Commission to private contractors and staff working for police authorities, particularly because my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) proposed such a measure last year. I am pleased that the Government have taken it up. Again, we would like to see further action, but I welcome the provision none the less.
	I welcome the measures on terrorism and on terrorists travelling abroad and the long-overdue measures on forced marriage, which, in my view and that of the Committee, will strengthen the legal basis for tackling this immensely challenging problem.
	I particularly welcome new clause 5 and the measures on sexual harm prevention notices, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North gave a fair wind yesterday. Their introduction to the Bill was a positive development, and I am pleased that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) brought them forward, with support from across the House.
	I welcome the measures on witness protection and, as far as they go—I will return to this shortly—the measures on dogs, although we think they could have gone further. I particularly welcome the measures against dog attacks in the home.
	I welcome the policing pay review body, which we will give a fair wind, but we need to look again at the commissioning of victims’ services by police and crime commissioners, as I still worry that it will lead to the fragmentation of victims’ services across the country.
	We therefore welcome several measures in the Bill. We challenged them in Committee, but they remain and broadly have the Opposition’s support. I have to say, however, that I do not welcome the changes to the ASBO regime or the developments on the injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance. I cannot for the life of me understand why a party that, during my formative political years, prided itself on being the party of law and order continues to bring forward measures that reduce the ability of the police and communities to tackle elements that need tackling in our communities. We have seen it on DNA and CCTV, and we are now seeing it on ASBOs. The changes are a reprehensible and retrograde step.
	On the same theme, I do not welcome the same party’s introducing thresholds for low-value shoplifting, which we had a strong discussion about in Committee. When the Association of Convenience Stores, which represents 33,000 shopkeepers across the country, is worried about such criminality and the changes relating to low-value shoplifting, the party of law and order—as was, but not anymore—needs to give some serious consideration to the matter.
	We support aspects of the Bill, then, but firmly do not support other aspects. On balance—to let you into a secret, Madam Deputy Speaker—Labour Members will give the Bill an unopposed Third Reading, but we will seek to take those matters forward. As I have said, we have to deal with what is in the Bill on Third Reading. We have identified important shortcomings, but we will grant the Third Reading. The Government must reflect further on the issues that have been debated, which have been raised by Members of all parties. Some issues have seen cross-party co-operation—for example,
	on the importance of dog notices, on the points about covert policing raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington and on how to protect shop workers and other staff from assaults at work. Domestic violence and gun control are other serious issues debated in Committee on which I hope the other place will reflect carefully. Another issue to be considered is that of legal highs and reducing their availability in our communities.
	While we are giving fair wind to the Bill, I hope that the other place will look carefully at the improvements we have suggested and listen not just to what Members have said today about dog notices, but to what all organisations have said about them. We want the other place to look at bringing forward measures to tackle covert policing, to protect people from assaults at work and further to reduce and stop the potential for gun use, for domestic violence and for legal highs.
	I thank the Minister for his consideration in Committee, but we think there is more to be done. We think that we have been constructive on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report about the changes that need to be made. Ultimately, we think that the issues I have mentioned that are not covered by the Bill now will be part of it following consideration in the House of Lords.
	I have enjoyed my role as shadow policing Minister and move on now to shadow Minister on immigration. I thank my colleagues for their support over the three years in opposition and one year in government in which I have discharged this role. I look forward to watching from afar as this Bill is further improved following consideration by the other place.

Tracey Crouch: It was a pleasure to serve on the Committee that considered this Bill. It was indeed the first Public Bill Committee on which I served. After my active participation, I am in no doubt that it may well be my last! I was pleased to play a role and I think that we Back Benchers sometimes underestimate and undervalue the work we do in scrutinising legislation, which is an incredibly important aspect of our job. I am proud to have been part of a team that has, as the Minister said, improved the Bill before it goes to the other place.
	I am particularly proud to have made some progress on the issue of bullying—a subject on which I feel strongly, and I believe that the House should continue to feel strongly about it. It is an issue that affects many children and their parents throughout the country. Building advice on bullying into Home Office guidance is a very positive step forward. I would have liked to see more, but that is for another day. We can continue to discuss online safety and cyber-bullying via the Select Committee on Home Affairs and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, and I have no doubt that we will come back to those issues at some future date.
	As I said many times in Committee, I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), but I disagree that we should be harking back to the halcyon days of ASBOs. Although they might have started off as a very good measure for tackling antisocial behaviour, the simple truth is that the breach rates are far too high. Clearly, then, because
	it is broke, it needs fixing. We can argue about how best to fix it, but I think that the Government proposals will strengthen our response to antisocial behaviour.
	The Minister and the House will be pleased to hear that I recently attended a residents’ meeting in Chatham at which we discussed the significantly high levels of antisocial behaviour in one small part of a ward. The police told residents that new provisions were going through Parliament as they spoke that would enable them to deal much more effectively with this problem in the future, including by ensuring some sort of community punishment. We have introduced what I consider to be sensible measures to ensure that people who commit crimes do not go into the stocks, but I can tell the Minister that my residents were very keen to put some of those perpetrators of antisocial behaviour into the stocks. I am pleased that we have amended the Bill to provide for proportionality of response, but I am also pleased that there will be an opportunity to impose community punishments such as cleaning up all the litter or getting rid of all the graffiti. That will be greatly welcomed in parts of my constituency.
	I have no doubt that the House of Lords will improve the Bill further through its precise scrutiny of specific clauses, and that it will consider some of the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Delyn, including legal highs and aspects of the dog legislation with which we have dealt at such length this afternoon, not least the sentencing issues.
	I am pleased to have played my part in the Bill’s passage so far, although I am not sure that the Ministers and the former Whip would be so delighted by my active participation. I think that this is a good Bill, and I look forward to its return from the House of Lords.

Robert Syms: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). She has done valuable work in raising the issue of bullying, which blights many children’s lives and is a very important subject for politicians to consider.
	This is a Christmas tree of a Bill. When a Bill has so many aspects it makes it difficult to provide enough time for discussion of important issues. However, I think that it has been improved during its passage so far, and it has certainly been given a great deal of scrutiny. I always enjoy the exchanges between the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, which are sometimes robust, and certainly—in the good parliamentary tradition provide answers to the question of why a Government and an Opposition take particular points of view.
	The main changes that have been made relate to extradition. There was a fair degree of consensus on the Bill, which was why at one point we had to slow down a little so that the extradition clauses could be tabled. The Committee had also considered the issue of extradition. In recent years, we have seen a number of examples of why the European arrest warrant is sometimes a good thing for Britain. We have seen gangsters extradited from Spain very quickly, sometimes within hours, and identified. One can understand why the Home Secretary is minded to opt back into the arrest warrant, following an opt-out, subject to reassurances.
	However, we are also aware of many constituency cases in which people have not been treated so well, and human rights have not been dealt with according to the good old British tradition of allowing a someone his day in court. People have been whipped out of the country somewhere abroad, have spent a period in prison, and have ended up either not being charged or being acquitted. It is a pity that we did not have an opportunity to explore that more fully today, although I know that a good many Members will be doing so. Of course, the House of Lords is stuffed full of experts—lawyers and others who are au fait with the issues—and I am sure that there will be proper scrutiny in the other place.
	I thank the Members who served on the Committee, and I thank the Ministers—including the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne)—for their contribution. We have considered some important issues, including antisocial behaviour, which blights many of our constituencies, and the National Crime Agency, which I think will be a great addition to crime-fighting, particularly across borders. Let us hope that they are considered further, and that we receive the reassurances on extradition that I think the House needs. I think that our constituents and the House will welcome many of those developments.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There are two Members left to speak. Given that the debate will end at 5.30 pm, I hope that they will agree to share the remaining time, and that each will speak for seven or eight minutes.

Julian Huppert: I am sure that we can do that, Madam Deputy Speaker. It seems positively generous, given some of the discussions that we have had today. I am very glad that we agreed yesterday to extend the debate to a second day, although I think that we could have used the time more productively.
	There is clearly a great deal of common ground, and the scrutiny process has clearly been useful. It began with pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Committee. The Bill was examined very carefully, and I commend the Government for that. A great deal has been added since then, but it was good to start in that way.
	I think that the large disagreement that remains ultimately comes down to whether we think that antisocial behaviour orders were an effective solution. I very much think that they were not effective. Yesterday, we heard that they were not effective in terms of breaches and that young people often used them as a badge of honour. We have also heard that the public do not think that they were effective. Last year, about 8% of people in an Angus Reid poll said that ASBOs were an effective way of reducing antisocial behaviour. Therefore, I am pleased that we are moving away from them. Unlike the shadow Minister, I am pleased that we are moving from sounding tough on antisocial behaviour to trying to reduce it. There is a difference between the two.
	I still have a number of concerns that I hope their lordships will have a chance to consider. I hope that the Government will reconsider those issues during the passage of the Bill in the Lords. I was pleased by the attitude of
	my hon. Friend the Minister in his maiden speech in his new role. He highlighted that we must not allow injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance to
	“become a means of targeting young people simply for being young people.”—[>Official Report, 14 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 541.]
	That is right. I am sure that the Government would not want that to happen. We must ensure that it does not. However, the breadth of the IPNA still concerns me. What counts as behaviour capable of causing nuisance or annoyance? I think that some draft guidance is going out. That needs to work. IPNAs should not be used to stop reasonable, trivial or benign behaviours that have not caused and are not likely to cause harm to victims or communities. Guidance can be misinterpreted and I hope that their lordships will look further at that issue. We must also ensure that any positive requirements granted are practicable and will not force people into a position where they simply cannot do what they are required to do and hence breach the IPNA.
	I remain concerned about the naming and shaming issue. Judges should do that only where it is necessary. We should have legislation to deal with that. Failing that, the guidance must be expressly clear, but I hope that their lordships will look more carefully at that.
	On eviction, the Joint Committee on Human Rights noted
	“the seriousness of riot-related offences”,
	but correctly questioned whether we need a special rule for riot-related antisocial behaviour, because it looks like
	“a punishment rather than a genuine means of preventing harm”.
	It punishes the entire family. I was pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister told the House that he would reflect on the issue. I hope that he will do so in the right direction.
	On schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, I was pleased to hear the Minister make some commitments, having looked at David Anderson’s recommendations. That will take us forward. I am pleased that the Government saw the problem with the existing legislation before it became a massive media story. However, the Government can go a lot further. I have tried to itemise a series of amendments that would make a substantial difference. The time has already been reduced from nine hours to six. However, we should go further. We should get rid of the idea of holding people without reasonable suspicion.
	One thing we do know is that, with all the people who have been convicted after being held, there has been intelligence ahead of that. I am told that not on a single occasion has someone been stopped and searched, effectively randomly, without suspicion, and been convicted. Therefore, if it is not working, we do not need it to be sure that we are convicting people. There is a series of processes—the right to silence, the right to a lawyer—which should be taken further in another place.
	I am pleased that the Government have shown throughout the passage of the Bill, from pre-legislative scrutiny to now, that they are listening and will reflect. I hope that that will continue in the other place and that this can be the right sort of Bill that helps us to deal with the genuine problem of antisocial behaviour, but also protects, indeed enhances, civil liberties by retreating from some of the things that the previous Government introduced—antisocial behaviour orders, schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act and much more.

Stephen Phillips: I do not wish to detain the House for any great period. I had the great privilege and honour of serving on the Bill Committee with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms), who was not always given an easy time by those whom he was whipping, even on his own Benches. As a number of hon. Members have done, I pay tribute to the proceedings in the Bill Committee. It was a great pleasure of course to work with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) and with the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice and the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who was also taking the Bill through the Committee.
	The Bill has shown the House at its best. It has been improved throughout the Bill Committee, both by Opposition amendments that the Government have taken on board—they have brought changes to the Bill before the House during Report—and amendments tabled by Government Back Benchers, which the Government have also taken into account. I want to pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her work during the passage of the Bill, which a number of us were pleased to support and which has led to the vast improvement of the Bill before it leaves this place.
	I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn for indicating he will not divide the House on Third Reading, but insofar as there is any difference between the two sides of the House on the Bill, it appears principally to centre on whether ASBOs have been a good thing. I understand that there is politics around this and the Labour party is deeply attached to the idea, but as I pointed out in our debate yesterday, whether or not ASBOs were originally effective, as matters now stand they have turned out not to be effective at all. As the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has pointed out, they have become a badge of honour for some teenagers, and the breach rates of ASBOs among teenagers in particular have risen to such levels that they have proved completely ineffective at controlling antisocial behaviour. It is therefore entirely right that the Government have moved to tackle this issue—as, I say to the right hon. Member for Delyn, I suspect that that would have been the position even if his party were in government.

Lady Hermon: We had to wait and wait impatiently for years for the Labour party to introduce ASBOs in Northern Ireland, and we were very grateful indeed when we had them extended to Northern Ireland and we have found them very effective.

Stephen Phillips: I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the breach rates among teenagers have in some places reached as high as 90% and in those circumstances it is
	absolutely plain, at least in England and Wales, that ASBOs are not working to control antisocial behaviour. The poll to which I referred yesterday and to which the hon. Member for Cambridge has referred today found that the vast majority of people in this country do not see ASBOs as an effective way of tackling antisocial behaviour. The position in Northern Ireland may be different, but the reality is that whichever party was in government, this issue had to be grappled with. I am pleased the Government have done so and have brought forward measures to deal with antisocial behaviour that are largely welcome on both sides of the House.
	As the Bill leaves the House, there are great sadnesses. One of them is that we are yet to have a proper debate on the extradition provisions. We have had the Scott Baker report, yet that has never been debated at length in this House. My hon. Friends the Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) have repeatedly sought to have a proper debate on extradition, and it remains a matter of great sadness to me—and, I know, a number of other colleagues—that we have not yet had that debate. I therefore hope that, as this Bill leaves the House with these effectively undebated provisions relating to extradition, they will receive a great deal of scrutiny in the other place.
	When my right hon. Friend the Minister opened the Third Reading debate he pointed out that one of the things this Bill will do is put the victim at the absolute heart of tackling antisocial behaviour. That is greatly to be welcomed. I had some concerns about the way in which community remedies were going to be dealt with in the Bill, but the Government have listened to the concerns I and a number of others had around how those provisions were to be interpreted and whether or not guidance should be given. That is one of the ways in which the Bill has been improved, and it serves to show this House in its best light.
	The Government have listened and brought forward measures designed to improve the Bill, so that when it is rolled out across the country, it tackles the things it is designed to tackle. I have paid a number of tributes already, but may I pay a final one? It is fair to say that the officials at the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs were given a great deal of work to do by the Bill Committee during the passage of this Bill, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister would wish to join me in congratulating them on all the work they did. As this Bill goes to the other place for further consideration, I can say that, in its drafting and the way in which it has been improved, it is, in my short tenure in this House, one of the best Bills the House has considered.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Deep Sea Mining Bill (Ways and Means)

Hugo Swire: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Deep Sea Mining Bill, it is expedient to authorise:
	(1) the imposition of charges in connection with licences granted as a result of the Act, and
	(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.
	The House debated the Bill on Friday 6 September and it received its Second Reading unopposed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) for her work on the Bill thus far and to Members from across the House who took part in the debate. The former Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), signalled the Government’s support for the Bill on Second Reading, and in order for the Bill to progress to Committee it is necessary for a Ways and Means resolution to be agreed by the House.
	As I have said, this motion allows for charges to be imposed in connection with licences granted as a result of the Act. Under the Act, licences would be granted for the exploration or exploitation of any of the certain mineral types for which the International Seabed Authority has regulations—currently, those are polymetallic nodules, polymetallic sulphides and ferromanganese cobalt-rich crusts. The licence would be specific to a particular area of the deep sea bed and it would not have effect until the ISA issued a corresponding contract to the same applicant. The application fee for an exploration licence currently stands at £10,000.

Lady Hermon: Have mining companies expressed any interest in exploiting the deep sea bed around the coast of Northern Ireland? The Bill extends to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland, as is helpfully explained in the explanatory notes.

Hugo Swire: I am not aware that there has been any such interest, but, as the hon. Lady says, the new licensing regime applies to Northern Ireland as much as it does to anywhere else. Of course, all this motion is doing is committing the Bill to Committee, where she will have a chance to use her forensic powers of examination to tease that and other information out.
	As I was saying, the application fee for an exploration licence stands at £10,000. The company then pays an annual fee for three years to continue to hold the licence; those fees are £15,000 for the first year, £25,000 for the second year and £25,000 for the third year. Those are substantial sums; indeed the fee for an application to the ISA is $500,000. Those involved are not small-scale companies but businesses that are prepared to make significant investments in the search for minerals on the deep sea bed. Two licences have been issued under the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, and should this Bill become law we hope it will encourage other companies to apply. The fees go into the Consolidated Fund. The ability of the UK Government to issue these licences, in a manner that is fully compliant with international law, will ensure that British companies benefit from the opportunities available in this new industry. The country as a whole will benefit, too.

Lady Hermon: I was particularly struck by the Minister’s phrase that the Bill will benefit “British companies” and allow them to exploit the deep sea bed. The Bill runs to only two clauses, but does it contain a clause that I have not noticed which reduces those who can mine the deep sea bed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland—but not Scotland—to British companies only?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before the Minister answers, it may be helpful if I remind the House that we are not discussing the Bill. This is about the charging regime for the licences; the debate is on the Ways and Means motion. I fear that we are in danger of debating the Bill, which would not be in order this evening. I know that the Minister is trying to keep in order.

Hugo Swire: I am most grateful to you for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would normally give the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) as straight an answer as I possibly could, but your injunction prevents me from doing so, so I will continue my speech.
	The country as a whole will benefit, too, from the associated revenue, supply chain jobs and science and technology development. I therefore commend the motion to the House.

Jim Shannon: I had hoped to intervene on the Minister before he sat down. I shall keep closely to the parameters you have outlined, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have a question about the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Bill will extend to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Has there been any interest from companies in Northern Ireland to obtain licences for deep sea mining and will there be close control from the Northern Ireland Assembly?

Hugo Swire: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman but I fear that I would be under the same injunction from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were I to debate exploration around the sea in Northern Ireland. There will be an opportunity to explore these matters further in Committee; the motion is about allowing the Bill to proceed in Committee.

Dawn Primarolo: Mr Shannon, if you could stand up and thank the Minister for his intervention and clarification, that would help us.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his clarification on those matters and stand graciously admonished.

Dawn Primarolo: Thank you for your assistance, Mr Shannon, as the Minister would otherwise have spoken twice.
	Question put and agreed to.

PETITIONS

Elections in Zimbabwe

Fiona Mactaggart: I rise to present a petition on behalf of 68 of my constituents and people living near Slough.
	I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for writing to me about the issue before I presented the petition and want to tell the House how important my constituents, and largely those of Zimbabwean origin, believe the petition to be.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of the supporters of Zimbabweans who love peace, resident in the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that elections held in Zimbabwe this summer were not free, peaceful and fair; further that the Mugabe regime has a long history of manipulating the entire process including pre-election, during voting and post-election and in 2008 Mugabe refused to accept the results in which his party was heavily defeated, he intimidated people, battered and killed MDC supporters before claiming victory; further that the 2013 elections have again been marked with massive irregularities and incomplete participation and there are serious questions about the credibility of the elections due to the number of irregularities both in the run-up to the ballot and on polling day.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons makes the world aware that the 2013 Zimbabwean election results are not credible and are not an expression of the will of the Zimbabwean people; and further requests that the House do all in its power to prevent the country plunging into another era of poverty and human suffering as it did in 2008, we ask for help to see human rights restored and support in the fight for a new Zimbabwe.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001223]

Mr Speaker: It is heartening to note that the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has toddled into the Chamber in time by a few moments. We will enable him now to catch his breath, as I call Dr Thérèse Coffey to present her petition.

Replacement of Blaxhall Post Box (Suffolk)

Therese Coffey: The petition requests the replacement of the Blaxhall post box. To give some context, a beautiful Victorian post box was stolen and has not been replaced, despite the fact that it is more than half a mile away from the nearest post box.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of Blaxhall,
	Declares that Royal Mail has declined to replace the stolen post box in the village despite Ofcom’s recent measures to protect rural post boxes from removal.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to support residents of Blaxhall in their request to Royal Mail to replace the post box.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001227]

The Save Coniston and Hawkshead GP Surgeries Campaigns

Tim Farron: I wish to present petitions on behalf of residents of the Hawkshead area and of the Coniston area—two separate petitions calling for the same thing, the retention of their two GP surgeries. I present the petitions on behalf of 928 people in the Coniston area and 1,228 people in the Hawkshead area.
	The petitioners declare that they believe that the GP surgeries in Hawkshead and Coniston in Cumbria will close unless the Government’s funding formula is changed to support rural practices, and further declare that the petitioners believe that the GP surgeries in Hawkshead and in Coniston are vital to the local community and therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to change their funding formula.
	Following is the full text of the petitions:
	[The Petition of a resident of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioner believes that the GP Surgery in Coniston, Cumbria will close unless the Government’s funding formula is changed to support rural practices and further declares that the Petitioner believes that the GP Surgery in Coniston is vital to the local community as those in Ambelside and Ulverside are not easily accessible to Coniston residents.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to change its funding formula.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001229]
	[The Petition of a resident of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioner believes that the GP Surgery in Hawkshead, Cumbria will close unless the Government’s funding formula is changed to support rural practices and further declares that the Petitioner believes that the GP Surgery in Hawkshead is vital to the local community.
	The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urge the Government to change its funding formula.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001230]

WELSH ASSEMBLY LEGISLATION (ATTORNEY-GENERAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Gyimah.)

Paul Flynn: I am extremely grateful to the Conservative party. Because of the social event that Conservative Members are attending tonight, it managed to engineer a little under two hours for me to make the important points that I wish to make, which is just about adequate time.
	We have a Government who are Janus-faced on a vital issue. I had the pleasure last Thursday of listening to the new the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), talking about his view of the principle of devolution. He is the one that is facing forward, but I believe there is another face to this Janus. Lurking in the Attorney-General’s Office is a little nest of devolution deniers who are doing great damage.
	The Minister of State said last week:
	“This has been something that, as you know, I have always been passionate about. Way back in Opposition, I wrote books on the need to transfer power from the centre to the places in our country. As you probably know, I am Middlesbrough born and bred, and the founders of the infant Hercules did not need to ask permission from central government to grow and prosper. I think we need to get back to the spirit of people, the leaders of our cities, towns and counties across the country, feeling that they have the right to initiate policies, do things differently, and have greater control of financial resources.”
	Hallelujah. Amen to that.
	But what has happened in Wales has been extraordinary. We have seen the other face of Janus that is looking backwards. That is where the devolution denial is coming from. The Attorney-General’s Office is suffering from an acute case of CPR—it is chronically power retentive in an era of devolution. This is not something that has come about as party propaganda. We have had votes on this. We have been through the whole process. We had a referendum to get devolution in Wales and we had a referendum to get greater powers.
	I speak with some pedigree on this because I can fondly recall the day in 1953 when I marched through Cardiff with people from several parties. I had a Labour party banner that said “Senedd i Gymru”, “a Parliament for Wales”. It did not say, “hanner Senedd i Gymru”. It did not say, “LCOs i’r bobl”. It did not say, “half-baked policies that can be shredded by a national Government.” It said, “a Parliament for Wales”. We still do not have one, sadly. We have a form of democracy, but it is not tax-raising and the limited powers that it has for passing laws have been frustrated at every turn.

Peter Hain: Does my hon. Friend recall also, on that theme, that in 1994 he and I and Jon Owen Jones, a former Member for Cardiff, Central, were censured by the Welsh Executive for speaking as Labour MPs at a conference in Llandrindod Wells for a Parliament for Wales?

Paul Flynn: I remember it vividly. It was a painful experience but one that resulted in promotion to Cabinet rank for my right hon. Friend. I saw the former hon.
	Member for Cardiff, Central today. At that time it meant challenging some of the views of the Labour party in Wales, which were not always progressive.
	We got to the stage where Wales had the chance to make laws on its own soil, not for the first time in history, but for the first time in 1,000 years. Laws were made by Hywel Dda between 942 and 950, and they were very progressive. One stated that if a wife caught her husband in bed with another woman for the third time, she could divorce him and get compensation for the previous two occasions. Women had the right to own land, which was progressive in 942. There was also a law—it is rather better than the bedroom tax and other measures we have now—stating that if a person had passed through three villages asking for food but not been fed, he or she could not be punished for stealing food. That was progressive Welsh legislation, and it should have inspired the Government to realise that, as the great Welsh proverb states: Hawdd cynnau tân ar hen aelwyd—it is easy to kindle a fire on an old hearth. The old hearth was there, because we were law-makers in the past, and good law-makers at that.
	Boldly the Welsh Assembly Government put forward their first law, which had the romantic title of the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill. They took it through the Assembly and it became an Act. One would not have expected it to cause an enormous amount of excitement, because it just cleared up a few other laws to allow local government to pass their own byelaws, which they have been doing without trouble for a long time. There was no hesitation and no excitement, but for some reason—I am sure that the Solicitor-General will explain it when he replies—that modest Bill, the first for 1,000 years to bear the royal Welsh seal, which made it significant, even if its content was not, was opposed by the Attorney-General’s office.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend might want to recollect that before that we had the procedure for legislative competence orders, which he has referred to. The first one I dealt with, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain), was the LCO on red meat. Although it was delayed, subject to parliamentary scrutiny that was a little over-onerous, we did not delay the red meat LCO too long, because otherwise it would have gone off.

Paul Flynn: Yes, it was a difficult period when we had the LCOs, which were a new legislative monstrosity that we were stuck with and that puzzled us, but as a result of certain ingenuity they did mean that some sort of law was made in Wales, even if in a cack-handed manner. They are now a footnote in history.
	The Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill went through because it was uncontroversial, and there was a little bit of ceremony because we were proud to be making laws in the land of our own country for the first time in more than 1,000 years. Why on earth was it opposed? The First Minister called it a
	“ridiculous situation that has arisen on what is a totally uncontroversial piece of legislation…The primary policy objective of the Bill is to simplify and rationalise how local authorities make byelaws to deal with nuisances in their areas…So why the UK government has decided to take this to the Supreme Court, at the last minute, is inexplicable.”

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a strong case about the first law, which was very historic, as he mentioned. Did he share my surprise, along with other members of the Welsh Affairs Committee, that the Secretary of State, and apparently the Attorney-General’s office, did not even seem aware of the cost to the taxpayer of referring that very modest measure to the Supreme Court?

Paul Flynn: I am glad that my hon. Friend has intervened, because I can remind him of the costs that the Government seemed indifferent to. The legal cost of the Treasury Solicitor’s Department for representing the Attorney-General in relation to the Bill was £59,000.

Peter Hain: That would cover a lot of the bedroom tax.

Paul Flynn: Absolutely. We could have saved lots of the bedroom tax if this had not been done. The legal cost incurred by the Welsh Government was £30,000, and about £15,000 was spent on civil service time in the Wales Office. The total bill was £150,000. Why? Because some pernickety piffle artist in the Attorney-General’s office was trying to make some kind of stand against devolution. He went through the might of the High Court. Five judges were there, looking dignified and wise in their wigs. The total number of judges who agreed with the Government was zero. It was a unanimous vote that this was a frivolous intervention.

Oliver Heald: While following the very excited way in which the hon. Gentleman is putting his case, I cannot let him get him get away with that, because the Court made it clear that it was a perfectly justifiable application, and in fact it clarified the law in an important way.

Paul Flynn: I think that a number of them agreed and the judgment was won.

Peter Hain: I am not sure that it is entirely fair for my hon. Friend to put all the blame on officials in the Attorney-General’s office in the way that he graphically described, because it was the Secretary of State in the Wales Office who referred the matter to the Attorney-General. As the then Secretary of State, I was the author of the Government of Wales Act 2006, under which this process took place. I can tell my hon. Friend, and the House, that in no way was that Act drafted and designed to allow for this situation to occur. The drafting of the relevant clause dealt with cross-border issues where there were questions, for example, about rivers that flowed across the border or other environmental concerns about which there might be disputes after a Wales Act had been passed by the UK Government in Westminster. There needed to be a reserve power by which the Secretary of State for Wales could clarify or tidy up anything that resulted from such a cross-border issue. It was never intended to allow the Secretary of State to ride roughshod over the devolution settlement and veto what the Welsh Assembly had decided.

Paul Flynn: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his expert view on this.
	Another Bill was then presented by the Welsh Assembly.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Before my hon. Friend continues on to another Bill, may I suggest that there might be an interpretation of what justified the Westminster intervention and challenge on this? It is as simple as this: for local government, a devolved area in Wales, read England.

Paul Flynn: Absolutely. This is part of the long history of the neglect of Wales and the undervaluing of Welsh life by the British Government over the years that now has a chance of being corrected.
	A Bill about the Welsh language was proposed that offered equal status to the two languages. While there were quibbles from the national Government about this, they did not take it to the High Court. We now have a farm workers wages Bill—a splendid Bill in many ways—that has had great support even from the farm unions in Wales. That is because there are farm wages boards in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, and the Bill tried to get the board continued in Wales. Farm workers along the borders in Wales are already exposed to market forces and do not have the protection that the 13,000 farm workers in Wales have. The Agricultural Wages Board set pay rates that gave a modest amount of protection to farm workers, whose wages have never been generous and were hardly generous under the Bill, but are certainly exposed to greater cuts now.
	The UK Government warned that there were important questions for the Supreme Court to resolve as to whether the Assembly acted within its powers on that matter. Yet whatever powers the Welsh Assembly got, they certainly included agriculture. There is no question about that, because it was the decision of this House under the Acts that were passed here. However, for some twisted reason the Government decided that this was to do with employment, and by that chicanery challenged the Bill.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my hon. Friend share my shock at the fact that the Welsh Government Minister, Alun Davies, had repeatedly made it clear to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that he wanted to carve a different path in Wales and was simply seeking a dispensation in order to do that, and yet he was told, “No, we will abolish the whole structure of the Agricultural Wages Board and then fight the battle over whether you can reinstate something that looks like it”? What sort of respect for devolution is that?

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend gives a splendid example. This is the reverse of devolution, the very opposite of what the new Minister of State at the Cabinet Office said the other day about local opinion and good ideas. Wales has a stronger case for an Agricultural Wages Board, perhaps, than many parts of England, so we should be able to make a different decision, but the Government object.

Paul Murphy: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Should it not be the case—it certainly was when I was Welsh Secretary—that disputes between devolved Administrations and the United Kingdom Government should be resolved at a governmental and political level, and that they should never get to a stage where they are resolved by the courts?

Paul Flynn: That is absolutely right. Leaving decisions to the courts and depending on expensive silks is no way to run devolved Assemblies or national Governments.
	A Bill on recovering NHS costs for asbestos treatment is also of great value. It went through the Assembly over the summer and is at an advanced stage. The first people to have their lives destroyed by negligent employers, or by defects in the health service with which they were provided, have suffered—it is a terrible, crippling disease—and they will be entitled to compensation from those who were responsible for causing the problem. What is wrong with that? The Bill has not been finally resolved, but if there is a problem with such Bills, surely the two authorities should discuss and resolve it.

Nia Griffith: Does my hon. Friend agree that that Bill is important because it will recover money for the health service, which is a very worthwhile thing to do? One would have thought there would be support for that across the whole of the UK.

Paul Flynn: That is absolutely right. The main part of the Bill is to get money back for the health service from the negligent people who allowed diseases to take hold. Many of the unfortunate people affected by asbestosis in Wales worked in industry.
	Tied to all this is the Government’s view of devolution. The Silk commission reported after a referendum that measured popular opinion in Wales. We know that the Tories have always had trouble with devolution. They were very much against it in 1994 when, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) has said, three of us were disciplined by the Labour party in Wales. Only one of their candidates in the first Assembly was elected by first past the post, while a few others came in through the assisted places scheme.

Si�n James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. We are still awaiting the latest information on the findings of the Silk commission. Devolution delivers the things we need for the people of Wales—Welsh solutions to Welsh problems—and yet we cannot seem to prise that information out of the Government. It is a great shame that we cannot make progress at the pace that the communities and citizens of Wales want when we are putting all this time and effort into good governance.

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend expresses very well the position we are in now. The Silk commission, after an exhaustive inquiry, made certain recommendations. We were promised that the Government would reply in the spring, then the summer, then the late summer and then the early autumn, but when will they actually respond? Carwyn Jones rightly said over the weekend that this is a major problem. An urgent bypass is required in Gwent and other constituencies that suffer continual traffic congestion, such as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), in order to find an alternative route for the M4. As Carwyn Jones said, the situation is frozen. The Welsh Government cannot move forward until there is a response to the Silk commission and action is taken on that.
	In a few weeks’ time, on 4 November, Newport will recall the great day when thousands of Chartists made their protest against the Government of the time. They
	intended to establish a republic. The plan was to stop the mail going from Newport—that is the Royal Mail, not the
	Daily Mail
	, although there may well be riots about that now—so that the signal would go to the rest of the country that a revolution was going on and that a republic was to be set up. It was very good of Her Majesty to organise a party tonight to give me enough time to explain what happened. Those people wanted to run their own affairs and to have autonomy 174 years ago.
	I will conclude, because I am sure that my hon. Friends will want to contribute to the debate, by reading a poem about that march in 1839 by Gillian Clarke, who concludes by saying that the “grudged gift” of devolution was given sparingly:
	“Their bones ached from the shift, wind in the shaft,
	the heat of the furnaces, yet on they marched,
	their minds a blaze because their cause was right,
	through darkness from Ebbw Vale, Blackwood, Pontypool,
	faces frozen and stung by the lash of rain,
	trudging the roads to Newport through the night.
	At the Welsh Oak, Rogerstone, betrayed by daylight,
	Frost’s men from the west, Williams’s from the east,
	Jones’s men never arrived. The rest struck on
	To stand united, of one heart in the square
	before the Westgate. Had they stood silent then,
	had they not surged forward, had they not been shaken
	by rage against injustice, had they muzzled
	the soldiers’ muskets with a multitude
	of silence, had reason spoken,
	those steely thousands might have won the day.
	But they stormed the doors to set their comrades free,
	and shots were fired, and freedom’s dream was broken.
	A score dead. Fifty wounded. Their leaders tried,
	condemned, transported. The movement, in disarray,
	lost fifty years. Then came, at last, that shift
	of power, one spoonful of thin gruel at a time,
	from strong to weak, from rich to poor,
	from men to women, like a grudged gift.”

Nia Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on his excellent speech in which he described our grave concerns about the way in which money has been used and continues to be used to deal with matters in a legal context rather than a political one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made the key point that we would like to see such discussions resolved politically, rather than being taken through the courts, with the huge costs that that involves.
	The Secretary of State for Wales is responsible for initiating the action. The sad thing is that in each case, he has acted right at the last minute. Instead of discussing early on whether the Assembly was taking the appropriate measures or proceeding in the right way, on each occasion he has waited until the very last minute, when the Welsh Assembly Government have had everything ready and have been prepared to act, to raise the objection, in an almost obstructive manner. I hesitate to use that word because it might be considered unparliamentary to
	accuse him of such action, but it really does look as though he acts just when the Welsh Government have an excellent idea.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke about the preparation that was done to allow the Agricultural Wages Board to remain in Wales. That was not a matter of starting from scratch, but of continuing what was already there. However, that has been laid waste because the legislation was put in question. That is such a wasteful way of proceeding.
	I would like to ask the Minister a question, to which I hope he will respond when he replies, although I fear it might be difficult for him as Solicitor-General, because he cannot predict what his colleague the Secretary of State for Wales will do. My question is, when will this process end? How many more things will the Welsh Government prepare and be ready to run with, only to find that they are suddenly thwarted? We want that process, and the ridiculous waste of money, to stop now. If there are doubts about what is within the competence of the devolved Government, let us get that sorted out properly, around the table in a grown-up manner, not in the current ridiculous way. It is like children running up to mummy or daddy to ask whether something is right or wrong. It is an absurd situation, and I would like to know whether the Attorney-General has had talks with the Secretary of State for Wales about making this the last time it happens. It should not continue in future.

Paul Murphy: Unexpectedly, I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on this issue. I do not actually think the Attorney-General’s Office is to blame for the situation. The system is to blame, because it means that issues are resolved through the courts when they should be resolved through the political process.
	The whole purpose of the Wales Office and its counterparts in Northern Ireland and Scotland is to resolve disputes such as those that have been described in a proper political way, so that they never have to enter a court of law, let alone end up going to the Supreme Court and costing so much money. When I was first appointed Secretary of State for Wales, virtually all the responsibilities of my predecessors had gone to the National Assembly for Wales. Although my hon. Friend and I—we have been friends for far too many years to remember—were not always on the same path on the issue, we have ended up in the same place on it, not least because the people of Wales recently voted to extend the Assembly’s powers. For the first time, it will have the right to produce its own primary legislation.
	The Solicitor-General will know that disputes in government are resolved either through correspondence or, if that cannot work, through Ministers meeting. In the case of matters involving devolved Administrations, Ministers of the Crown meet other Ministers of the Crown who happen to be in the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Beyond that, there is machinery, for which I was once responsible, for joint ministerial committees. If necessary, there is British-Irish Council. All that means that matters can be resolved
	in a way that avoids the need to go to the courts. Of course, the situation is not the same when different parties are in government in London and Cardiff, but the principle is the same—to try to resolve the problem.
	I rather fancy that the Solicitor-General will talk about whether the National Assembly has the powers to do certain things and whether it acts ultra vires or intra vires. Even those points can be resolved by diplomatic means, however, if they are talked through. By going to the Supreme Court, we press the nuclear button. Although that might satisfy the lawyers, civil servants and Ministers who think it should be done, they are unwittingly doing immense damage to the devolutionary settlement, whether in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The whole purpose of devolving legislation and administration to those three countries and regions of the United Kingdom is that they are allowed, by Act of Parliament and by referendum, to take their own decisions. If the Government do not like something, a crafty way to stop it is not through negotiation among Ministers but by going to the courts. That is the wrong way to do it.
	A lot of the problem is the general inexperience in government of how devolution works. For many years, I was frustrated with Whitehall Departments because they did not understand what devolution meant. The purpose of the territorial Departments of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is to undertake liaison between the Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and that of the United Kingdom.

Stephen Doughty: My right hon. Friend is making a strong case. Does he agree that at play here was something much more sinister because, in the case of the Agricultural Wages Board, the Welsh Government were going to show up the UK Government in what they were doing and what we were trying to protect? Let us not forget that the measure was to protect more than 13,000 low-paid agricultural workers in Wales. The use of this constitutional process shows not only disrespect for devolution, but a way of trying to get away from something the Government did not want to be shown up in public.

Paul Murphy: There are two ways of looking at it. There are party political differences because of the different parties in the different countries, but I also experienced that when Labour was in government and other state Departments were not necessarily sympathetic to what the Welsh Government were doing. It was my job to say, “You might not like it, but you’ve got to do it because that is what devolution is all about.” Otherwise, what is the point of having it in the first place?

Huw Irranca-Davies: When I served under my right hon. Friend as Under-Secretary of State for Wales, a signature of his tenure in office was that at all times such resolutions were dealt with early and within our mechanisms. It was a signal failure if something had to escalate to another constitutional mechanism, and it did not go at all to the Supreme Court.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and there is machinery within the Government system for resolving disputes between the devolved Administrations and their Parliaments, and the United Kingdom Government. That has been set up for nearly 16 years and is precisely to deal with those areas of
	considerable difference. In my view, that includes whether there is a dispute, and whether something is intra vires or ultra vires. I repeat: to take the issue to the courts is to press the nuclear button and could cause immeasurable damage to the devolution settlement.

Si�n James: I want to return to the Agricultural Wages Board—a good example —and ask the Solicitor-General why he is so adamantly trying to stop the agricultural wages sector in Wales, which is important to us in Wales as a rural economy. I represent the wonderful rural constituency of Swansea East and—I have to say this—I have a husband and son who are actively engaged in the rural community. I therefore get my ear bent about this matter on a regular basis by family, friends and neighbours, and I note the concern that people are expressing to me, and the worry. We have already seen the agricultural industry hit. Many people will have far greater fluency on the issue and be more qualified to speak about these matters than I am, but the idea that we in Wales cannot make a decision about helping farmers and rural workers within the boundaries of Wales without having it challenged is a retrograde step in the light of devolution, as many of my colleagues have said.
	I am worried because the Farmers Union of Wales has stated clearly that this is about attracting young people of high calibre to the agricultural industry. If we want to attract the best young, forward-thinking people, including women, into rural industries and those related to them, how do we do that when we have to fight for every penny? How do we say, possibly when unscrupulous employers are taking advantage of the fact that there is now no Agricultural Wages Board to protect people, “It’s okay, we’ll look after you”?
	This is not a race to the bottom; it is supposed to be a race to the top, but I am finding it difficult, and I would like the Solicitor-General to explain the situation to me and to all the people in Wales, including the 13,300 agricultural workers who would be protected by the introduction of the legislation in Wales. They are heaving a huge sigh of relief and are sympathetic to their fellow workers across the border in England. We already have wages boards in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and we cannot see why this legislation was introduced in Westminster.
	I am going over old ground—the Minister will have heard this regularly and be well aware of it—but we want and need that protection in Wales. If we want a thriving rural sector in Wales, we must pay decent wages. We must ensure that we can protect people.
	As I have said, I have friends in unglamorous jobs in farming—cow men, shepherds, general farm workers and farriers. They are cross, as hon. Members can imagine. They expect to be protected. They have been successfully protected for 65 years. During that period, many hundreds of thousands of people have been ensured a minimum wage and protection.
	When the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) was a Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, he suggested that Labour Members assumed that farm workers were “forelock-tugging yokels”. All hon. Members accept that the world has moved on since 1948, but protection is not backward looking; it is about the future.
	Somebody once likened history to using a rear-view mirror in a car: it is useful, but we do not necessarily need it. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) spoke of history, particularly of the Chartists. We should look over our shoulders and ask why the Agricultural Wages Board was established in the first place and what it has done over the years. I am sorry, but in Wales we would like to plough our own furrow—pardon my pun.
	I return to the basic question. The board is supported by farming unions in Wales and other parts of the UK. I ask the Minister to accept that we in Wales want to be forward thinking. We want to protect people and give them decent wages. The Labour Welsh Assembly Government is to be congratulated on their action. They should not be stymied and thwarted at every corner. Let us move forward.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) not only on introducing the debate and on his excellent peroration on the stymieing of legislation and policy in Wales by the current Westminster Government, but on expounding on the narrative history of the Chartists and why it is relevant. I can only share his disappointment that we have so little time to debate this—we could go overnight, but, in compliance with the wishes of right hon. and hon. Members, we will try to avoid that situation.
	The legislative competence order process was a previous mechanism for producing legislation in Wales. It was slightly cumbersome and convoluted, and required a great deal of detailed scrutiny in Parliament. However, it passed some cognisance of the growing authority of the Welsh Government. LCOs were much criticised at the time—rightly, in some ways, because they caused delay and were complex, even for the very good officials in the Wales Office in London and in Cardiff, and for Welsh Government officials, who worked through the minutiae. The intention—to afford proper scrutiny in Parliament and ensure that the Welsh Government could introduce their own measures under the process within their clearly devolved responsibilities and so on—was good. Yes, it caused delays, but there was a good spirit. We managed to pass LCOs into legislation, even after good scrutiny in Parliament by the Welsh Affairs Committee and others. There was never any intention to hold things up unduly.
	The purpose was the growing relationship under the LCO system between the right scrutiny of this place at that time and the right role of the Welsh people, through their elected officials in the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Government, to introduce appropriate measures from Wales. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that was not without its difficulties. It could sometimes be tortuous—even the now legendary red meat LCO took a little time to get on to the books, and that was one of the more straightforward orders—but we got there eventually. On all occasions, the intention of my right hon. Friends the Members for Neath (Mr Hain) and for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) was for their officials to work with officials in the Welsh Government and the Welsh Assembly to try to progress the measures through the LCO mechanism, which was imperfect but was what we had at the time.
	What has followed, with the will of the Welsh people, is ostensibly an attempt to streamline the process to give clarity on where devolved responsibilities lie, and to allow the Welsh Government, the Welsh people and Welsh civic society to get on with passing their own laws—whether we, on both sides of the House, might agree or disagree with them ideologically—to define their own democratic path. As we have heard, it has not quite gone that way. For those on the Opposition Benches it feels like there has been by the current Secretary of State for Wales—I do not blame the Solicitor-General for looking quizzical—a maybe inadvertent but deliberate attempt to hold up, to challenge, to rebuke the Welsh people for being so impertinent as to actually bring forward their own legislation.

Oliver Heald: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman suggest that LCOs are better than the current system, whereby the National Assembly for Wales has primary powers in 20 areas. What is more, most of the Bills are going through without any difficulty. There have been difficulties with two, but the idea that we should go back to LCOs is wrong.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman more. Perhaps I should clarify what I was saying: LCOs were clearly imperfect, but the new system is meant to be better. Even with the LCO paraphernalia—it was difficult and cumbersome—attempts were made within the constitutional arrangement, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has made clear, to work through those difficulties. If necessary, and as a last resort, they would be escalated up the constitutional food chain for resolution at a higher level, but there was certainly not the seemingly macho political posturing of taking it outside of this place without recourse to internal mechanisms and straight to the Supreme Court. I can see only one possible justification for that: to prove some sort of point and say to the people of Wales and the democratically elected representatives in Wales, “Know your place.”

Stephen Doughty: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is also an opportunity cost here? What is the Secretary of State for Wales doing with his and his officials’ time, attempting to stymie and frustrate the will of the Welsh people and the National Assembly instead of focusing on standing up for Wales around the Cabinet table? He was evasive when we questioned him on this point in the Welsh Affairs Committee. He would not give us an estimate of the amount of time that he and his office had spent on this. I suspect it was far more than it should have been.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There is a clear case for a cost-benefit analysis of the tasks the Secretary of State is spending his time on, and for asking why he is not finding more useful things to do. There is also the question of the cost of challenging this through the Supreme Court. In an era of what we are told is great austerity, cutbacks and stringent demands on Departments, I am amazed that the Wales Office thinks it fit to throw on to Government—albeit another Department—the cost associated with a Supreme Court challenge.
	I turn to the Agricultural Wages Board, about which I know some small amount, given that I was the shadow Minister who stood here frequently in opposition to its abolition. Just as frequently, I put the case that the Westminster Government merely needed to allow Wales to continue as it was by putting a clause in the Bill, as requested by the Welsh Government, saying, “Ignore Wales for these purposes.” We only asked that they let us carry on and find a way to do it ourselves, rather than abolishing the whole mechanism and saying, “Now do what you want.”
	I pay tribute to the work of Unite, in Wales and throughout the UK, which stood up for the lowest of the low-paid agricultural workers, for skills and training and for the development of earnings and capacity among agricultural workers. I also pay tribute to colleagues in the Welsh Assembly, including Mick Antoniw and others, who fought the good fight in Wales and to the Farmers’ Union of Wales—for goodness’ sake!—which said, “The reason we want to keep it in Wales is that we are slightly different from England. We have a higher proportion of small and medium-sized farms, which do not only employ individuals. That is why we want the clarity provided by the Agricultural Wages Board. We also rent ourselves out.” The would say to me, “I as a small farmer, rent out, and I know the terms of the contract.” I am talking of the young farmers of Wales too. These are not organisations that would automatically side with Labour on every issue in defence of something such as the Agricultural Wages Board, but my goodness they did on this occasion.
	All that the Welsh Government and Alun Davies, the Welsh Minister, were asking was, “Give us time and space to define our own future”, but that did not happen. We debated it long and hard, we fought the good fight, speaking up for the Agricultural Wages Board not only in England, but in Wales, all the while conscious that the voice of representatives in the Welsh Government and the National Assembly was not being heard anywhere except in the media. We had to speak for them.
	Wales lost without having had a direct say, and all that was required was for a Westminster Minister to say, “We concede that agriculture is a devolved responsibility. We won’t challenge you. We will put a clause in the Bill that will allow you to proceed.” That, I say to the Solicitor-General, would have shown respect for Wales and the devolution settlement. Rather than that, and symptomatic of the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West, we had a firm no. The door was shut in our faces. In effect, it wiped Wales off the democratic map. That is a regret.
	The Solicitor-General is a reasonable and fair-minded fellow. The cacophony of pleas from the Opposition might remind him of the old poem about Welsh people worrying the carcase of a dead song and being a bit too melancholy, but we are not melancholy; we want to be joyous and we want to celebrate devolution and respect the fact that the people of Wales supported greater devolution. We just ask the UK Government, whatever political perspectives make it up, also to show that respect.

Oliver Heald: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) for initiating the debate. The issues raised are important
	and go to the heart of the UK’s devolution arrangements. It is clear that the issues have raised concerns among several hon. Members.
	The hon. Gentleman, in his characteristic way, brought in history and his own political struggle over many years, and it was clear that he would like devolution to go further still. That is his viewpoint. I found the information about the three villages law of 945 particularly interesting, although I am not sure that it would be of current import and could cause some concerns if implemented by the current Government. It is not the Conservative’s stance on law and order, but it was an interesting piece of context.
	The subject of the debate is the role of the Attorney-General in reviewing legislation passed by the National Assembly for Wales—a role that I share with him. Despite the comments of the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), this role was conferred by Parliament on the Attorney-General under the Government of Wales Act 2006. That was, of course, under a Labour Government, with their own approach to the issue of devolution. They had set forward a system of devolution that was a conferred powers model rather than the sort of model used elsewhere in the United Kingdom. As that happened, Parliament recognised that the devolution settlement for Wales must be made to work. The 2006 Act sets out the 20 “devolved” subjects in respect of which the National Assembly may legislate. It is the responsibility of this Parliament to legislate in any area that is not devolved.
	The 2006 Act provides for the Attorney-General to consider each Bill of the National Assembly, so the Government look carefully at all legislation passed by it to ensure that it falls within the Assembly’s legislative competence. The Act provides that, where the Attorney-General or I consider a Bill to go beyond the Assembly’s competence, we can refer it to the Supreme Court to decide the question.
	All of that recognises that it is in the nature of legislation that it may often appear to be about more than one thing. Where that happens with legislation passed by the National Assembly, a judgment has to be made about whether the legislation is about something that either is or is not devolved. The Government of Wales Act 2006 provides a means for the Attorney-General and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, to arrive at that judgment. If it did not, the devolution settlement could not work. The same power to refer a Bill to the Supreme Court is conferred on the Counsel General for Wales. In this way, there is an appropriate equality between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.
	That illustrates an important point that I do not want to get lost in the debate. Something has been made of the idea that this Government are anti-devolution or are somehow determined to thwart the will of the Welsh Government and the democratically elected National Assembly for Wales. Where concerns arise, as the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) said, most are resolved by a process of negotiation between the UK and the Welsh Governments. My officials have excellent working relations with their colleagues in the Wales Office and their opposite numbers in the Counsel General’s Office. The Attorney-General and I have excellent working relations, as one would expect, with the Secretary of
	State for Wales and with the Counsel General, Theodore Huckle, QC. Together, we are working hard to try to reach agreement.
	It was suggested by the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Minister for Wales, that there was a problem with the UK Government making an effort to resolve issues before they escalated to the Supreme Court. It is, however, the last resort. The Wales Office, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, has discussed with the Welsh Assembly Government concerns about the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill from the outset, and the Secretary of State wrote to the First Minister as soon as the draft Bill was available, expressing concerns about it—but the Welsh Government could not be persuaded to address them. The mechanisms provided under the Government of Wales Act 2006 will therefore need to be followed. Under its provisions, we are guardians of the Welsh devolution settlement and together we must put our efforts into making it work.
	A reference to the Supreme Court is not a confrontational process. It does not amount to this Government or any Government picking a fight with the National Assembly. It is a simple recognition of the fact that a particular piece of Welsh legislation raises difficult devolution questions that are best answered by the independent Supreme Court. That process of resolution is to the benefit of the Welsh Government, the National Assembly and the UK Government. It is in all our interests that we fully and clearly understand the boundaries of the devolution settlement.
	Full primary law-making powers are still relatively new for the National Assembly. It was the UK Government and the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who facilitated the successful referendum in 2011 on the devolution of those powers to the Assembly, allowing it to pass its own laws in 20 devolved areas for the first time. That was a major departure in comparison with a legislative competence order, as it lodged the power squarely with the Assembly.
	We are still learning about the settlement. Decisions by the Supreme Court about what is within the legislative competence of the Assembly allow us to establish the boundary with greater certainty, and the Supreme Court itself has recognised that when there is uncertainty, it is appropriate for a reference to be made to allow it to be resolved at the earliest possible stage. That was true of the byelaws case.
	Having said all that, 1 do not want the House to think that a reference to the Supreme Court is made lightly, or is somehow to be seen as the easy way out. Several Bills have now been passed by the Assembly, and the vast majority are uncontroversial in devolution terms. For the most part, there is consensus with the Welsh Government and the National Assembly that the legislation passed is within competence.
	It is clear from this evening’s debate that the reference of the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill has given rise to strong emotions, which were set out by the hon. Member for Swansea East (Mrs James). Given that the reference has been made, I do not think that I should discuss the arguments about, in particular, the competence of that Bill in any detail here. We shall await the Court’s decision. What I will say is that the reference relates to all the
	themes that I have already identified, and that the United Kingdom Govt take the view that employment law is a UK competence.
	The Attorney-General considers that the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill raises important questions about the extent of the Assembly’s legislative competence and the boundary of the devolution settlement. Despite the good working relationships that I have described and the efforts of the UK Government, it was not possible to persuade the Welsh Government that there was a way forward that would meet their concerns. That is why the Supreme Court will have to make the decision. It is a sign of the Government’s respect for the current devolution arrangements, and our wish to provide certainty and stability for those who work in the agricultural sector, that we are continuing the existing agricultural wages regime in Wales until the court case is decided.
	The Government of Wales Act 2006 was introduced by the previous Labour Government. It provided a conferred model for Welsh devolution whereby subjects that were devolved and within the legislative competence of the Assembly were specified in the legislation. The present Government believe that the conferred model is right for Wales. The settlement is not perfect, and the Silk commission—which has been mentioned—is currently considering how it could be improved. The Government will respond to Part 1 of the commission’s recommendations in due course, and, as the House will know, there was a further consultation about stamp duty during the summer. The Government are determined to see the process through, and to make it work.
	There is some room in the settlement for different views in certain areas about the extent of the National Assembly’s legislative competence. That is why the last Labour Government provided a mechanism for the Supreme Court to scrutinise Assembly Bills. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for Torfaen that, if possible, it should be the last resort.
	It was this Government who enabled the referendum on full Assembly powers to take place. That is an achievement of which we are proud, and because of it we are seeing a growing and maturing legislature in Wales. That is what devolution is about.
	The hon. Member for Newport West mentioned the Asbestos (Recovery of Medical Costs) Bill. It is true that there have been constructive discussions about the Bill, but that demonstrates that the UK Government are seeking to resolve the devolution concerns at the earliest possible stage.
	I do not think that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) should be so pessimistic. I realise that to some extent he was making a political case, and it was very nice of him to say how reasonable and fair-minded I am: I have always found him to be the same. However, I think that progress is being made. It is early days, and I believe that this will be seen as a major achievement which is proceeding effectively.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.